Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock,Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (COLONIES).

2 and 11. Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (I) whether he will consider the advisability of making it clear to the German Government that in no circumstances will the former German Colonies be returned in full sovereignty to Germany and that no possibility exists of discussion of the extension of the mandates system and internationalisation of colonial administration, except as part of a final settlement, which would involve the return of Germany to full co-operation with the League of Nations and the putting into operation of a disarmament convention under international supervision;
(2) whether he will consider the advisability in connection with a general settlement, including the return of Germany to full co-operation with the League of Nations and the putting into force a disarmament convention with international inspection, of proposing that colony-owning nations, such as Great Britain, Belgium, France, Holland, Portugal, and Italy should place their colonies under mandate from the League of Nations and introduce the principle of international administration, with a view to depriving those countres without colonies, such as Germany and Poland, of the grievances at present existing?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I have nothing to add to previous statements on this subject made on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mander: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to consider these two questions as a contribution towards the study of the problem?

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the mere fact that such questions are tabled, suggesting giving away the British Colonial Empire, is resented in every part of the British Empire?

Mr. Shinwell: Will the rght hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the policy of the Government still remains somewhat ambiguous?

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS (FINGERPRINTS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider bringing in regulations as regards stamping on passports, alongside the signature, the print of the right thumb of the holder of the passport, solely for the purpose of identification when travelling abroad?

Mr. Eden: Apart from the objection which exists in the minds of the public to any requirement of fingerprints, there are many insurmountable difficulties in the way of the adoption of such a system, and I am not convinced that any substantial public benefit would accrue from its adoption.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the International Police Convention which was held at Copenhagen it was urged that all passports should bear the fingerprints of the owner with a view to preventing the use of fraudulent passports, and does he not think that it is only prejudice which stands in the way of the adoption of a practice which would prove to be a very sound one?

Mr. Eden: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information—I did not know it—but I think that life is complicated enough already.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider instituting this system for police officers first as an experiment?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

3. Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the particulars, according to his records, of the number of British subjects who are still being held as prisoners by the insurgent authorities in Spain; and what, if


any, further steps are being taken to secure their release?

Mr. Eden: I am glad to be able to say that all the British subjects known to have been held as prisoners of war by General Franco's forces have now been released.

Mr. Day: Has the Minister had any complaints as to the private property of some of those prisoners still being detained?

Mr. Eden: No, I have not received any.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Were not these prisoners all very well treated?

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: What about the Basque children who are still being detained here?

13. Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now say what zone has been allotted to the Italian Navy under the Nyon Agreement?

Mr. Eden: The foreign Governments concerned are being approached with a view to obtaining their views as to the publication of the information desired by the hon. Member.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that the steamship "Jean Weems" was sunk on the high seas by an Italian aeroplane, is it not of extreme importance that all British shippers should know where the Italian zone is?

15. Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the reasons of courtesy which require the visit of a British flagship to the insurgent authorities at Cadiz; and whether he proposes to instruct another flagship to pay a similar ceremonial visit to the Governrnent authorities at Barcelona?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr, Duff Cooper): The Rear-Admiral Commanding Destroyers, Mediterranean Fleet, visited Cadiz on 23rd November in order to inform the naval authorities there that units of the Mediterranean Fleet would be carrying out exercises at night, and to make arrangements to guard against any untoward incident occurring during these exercises. The visit had, therefore, a purely utilitarian, and not

a ceremonial, object. In the circumstances, the second part of the question hardly arises; but, in point of fact, His Majesty's ships did visit Barcelona three times during the last month.

16. Mr. Day: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty particulars of any British steamers that have been arrested on the high seas by British warships under the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act; and whether the investigations into their detention have now been completed?

Mr. Cooper: Two British merchant ships, the "Euphorbia" and "African Mariner," have been taken into port by the British Naval authorities, for examination under the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act. As regards the "Euphorbia," I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) on 25th November. I understand that the authorities at Malta have now completed the search of the "African Mariner" and that no arms have been found. The ship has, therefore, been permitted to proceed.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether the search and investigation are facilitated in order that the vessel may not be delayed?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

4. Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House of the latest reports received from His Majesty's representatives in China as to the recent changes that have taken place in that country?

Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned by my Noble Friend to a similar question which he put on 10th November.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say how often these reports are received?

Mr. Eden: Not without notice.

8. Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the Japanese Prime Minister's declaration as to the possibility of Japan taking military control of Shanghai?

Mr. Eden: I have seen reports of what is alleged to have been said to a journalist. While I would deprecate any exaggerated deduction from this statement, His Majesty's Government could not, of course, recognise the right of any of the Settlement Powers to take unilateral action for the solution of problems arising from the administration of the Settlement.

Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman making inquiries as to whether this statement was made? It was promised by the Under-Secretary?

Mr. Eden: My answer is comprehensive, and I would rather leave it there.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the unorthodox manner in which this statement and similar statements have been made, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be better if His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo did make some representations?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member must not assume that he did not do so. Unfortunately, unorthodox statements are not limited to any one country.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have any joint British, French and American representations been made about the situation at Shanghai?

9. Mr. McEntee: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Japanese military authorities at Shanghai are censoring or claiming to censor all news sent from this country to the British newspapers published in Shanghai; and what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in this respect?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. Information in my possession does not indicate that the Japanese authorities are censoring or claiming to censor messages from this country to the British newspapers in Shanghai; the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

10. Commander Marsden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the seizure of the Chinese Post Office by the Japanese, satisfactory assurance has been obtained from the Japanese Government and from the Japanese commanders at Shanghai that there will be no interference with the British mails; and, if not, whether he will take steps for the immediate re-opening

of the former British Post Office at Shanghai, as a temporary measure pending the restoration of normal conditions?

Mr. Eden: The Post Office, so far as I am aware, has not been seized. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

12. Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement concerning the present position with regard to the Chinese Customs service at Shanghai?

Mr. Eden: During the course of last week publicity was given to a number of utterances attributed to the Japanese military authorities in Shanghai which appeared to His Majesty's Government to constitute a serious threat to the proper functioning of the Chinese Maritime Customs, and to the service of the foreign loans secured on the Customs revenues. His Majesty's Government accordingly entered into consultation on the subject with the United States and French Governments. His Majesty's Government have reminded the Japanese Government that the Chinese Maritime Customs have at all times been an international interest, and that they expect to be fully consulted in regard to any arrangement which may be reached for the carrying on of the Customs service during the present hostilities. Similar representations have been made by the United States and French Governments. Discussions on the subject are still proceeding.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what ground he states that a change should be made in the existing system during hostilities?

Mr. Eden: I do not know that that was implied by my answer.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have the Japanese Government already given any guarantee with regard to that portion of the Chinese Customs revenue which is earmarked for the service of loans from this country?

Mr. Eden: Discussions on the subject are still proceeding, and as the matter is one of importance, I would rather not answer any supplementary questions.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Have we yet agreed to the proposition that if there is a residue over and above what is required for the foreign loans, that will not belong, as before, to the Chinese Government?

Mr. Eden: From the fact that negotiations are proceeding it will be realised that we have not yet agreed to anything.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL AND ARGENTINA (BRITISH INVESTORS).

5. Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will notify the Brazilian Government that the United Kingdom can obtain adequate supplies of fruit from overseas British sources, and that a complete embargo will be imposed upon the importation into the United Kingdom of Brazilian fruit unless arrangements acceptable to the British Government are arrived at about Brazilian loans held here and British investments in the Leopoldina and other Brazilian railways?

Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 29th November, which defines the views of His Majesty's Government on the points raised by my hon. Friend, and to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the losses sustained here by the public will the Government not now consider issuing a loan at 2½ per cent. to agriculture?

6 and 7. Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (r) whether his attention has now been drawn to the observations on the position of the Anglo-Argentine railways in the Department of Overseas Trade Report, No. 683, June, 1937, of His Majesty's commercial secretary at Buenos Aires; and whether, in view of these observations, he will now ask the Argentine Government for a considered reply upon those observations, as the treatment of British investments in Argentina is causing such bad feeling here that it may prevent a renewal of the meat agreement with Argentina's best customer;
(2) whether he will draw the attention of the Argentine Government to Report No. 683 of His Majesty's commercial secretary at Buenos Aires, which shows that for the past 35 years the average return on £227,000,000 sunk in the AngloArgentine railways, including debentures, has been 3¾ per cent. per annum, and in 1936 I½per cent., and also to the fact that much of this low rate of income has been wiped out by loss of the capital;

and will he inform the Argentine Government that a trade agreement is valueless to us if the export trade arising from British loans to Argentina results in the loss of British savings?

Mr. Eden: I have no doubt that the Argentine Government is fully aware of the facts set out in the report to which my hon. Friend refers. As I have repeatedly stated in answer to questions by my lion. Friend and other hon. Members, it is the view of His Majesty's Government that the solution of the present difficulties experienced by British railways in the Argentine is in the first place a matter for negotiation with the Argentine Government by the companies concerned, who are perfectly well aware that I am always ready to consider sympathetically any request for assistance that they may wish to make. I do not think that the companies themselves would welcome intervention at the present stage by His Majesty's Government on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not a fact that the present government in the Argentine is giving more favourable consideration not only to railways but also to British financial interests in the Argentine?

Mr. Eden: I think that is so.

Mr. Leach: Will the Minister say how many countries have not now repudiated their post-War debts, apart from Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY.

14. Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether conversations are now taking place between the Italian Government and His Majesty's Government through His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome with a view to the improvement of relations between Italy and this country; and whether he is in a position to make a statement?

Mr. Eden: I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Mr. Henderson: Is it intended to have these negotiations?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid that I cannot add to my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (SKIPPERS).

17. Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, out of the total number of 239 of skippers rank in the Royal Naval Reserve, only four have been appointed from the Western Islands; and whether, in view of the large proportion of men recruited from these islands, he will take steps to remedy this discrepancy?

Mr. Cooper: The principal qualification for promotion to skipper R.N.R. is the possession of the Board of Trade certificate of competency as skipper, and the Admiralty cannot modify this requirement, since skippers R.N.R. have to take command of Naval trawlers in time of war. At present all R.N.R. men registered in the Western Isles who possess the necessary qualifications have been promoted.

NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS (BOMBING, PROTECTION).

18 and 19. Mr. Ralph Beaumont: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (r) whether he has under consideration the construction of bomb-proof shelters in the Royal Dockyards and other establishments in case of emergency;
(2) whether he is considering the construction of bomb-proof shelters in the naval barracks, in view of the probable concentration in the barracks of large numbers of men in time of emergency?

Mr. Cooper: For some time past the Admiralty have devoted their attention to the problem of protecting personnel in all naval establishments against the effects of bombing attacks, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will not wish to press for details of the measures which are contemplated.

Mr. Beaumont: Can the Minister assure the House that every step possible will be taken to avoid a repetition of the disastrous occurrences in the last War at Chatham?

Mr. Cooper: Every step will be taken which is considered advisable and desirable.

Mr. Ede: Will the Minister consider taking the whole Board of Admiralty into the shell factory that is being tested?

Mr. R. Acland: If the Minister cannot give the details, will he be in a position

to give at some time the expense of the scheme?

Mr. Cooper: I am not in a position to do so at present, but I might be later on.

HAIFA.

21. Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps he can take to extend the port of Haifa to suit the new needs of the Navy in the Mediterreanean; and whether His Majesty's Government w ill allow a loan to meet the cost?

Mr. Cooper: The Admiralty are not contemplating any extension to the port of Haifa, and the second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

DOCKYARDMEN (PENSION AUGMENTATION).

22. Captain Plugge: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the number of workmen who on attaining the age of 60 are discharged from the dockyards and sent to the Employment Exchange to offer their services, and who find a reluctance on the part of employers to engage them; and whether he will consider the possibility of giving to all employés a better pension than is now the case after 30 years of good service under the State?

Mr. Cooper: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to him on 7th July last. I am, however, able to add that by agreement on the Admiralty Industrial Council it has now been arranged that established workmen, who at the age of 60 are not entitled to a pension of 15s. a week, will be retained in the Service to augment their pension.

Captain Plugge: Is the Minister aware that the pensions system for dockyard workers is very much inferior to that of other branches of the Civil Service, and, in fact, to that enjoyed by the personnel of the Royal Navy itself?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the First Lord recommend his supporters to support the Motion which is on the Order Paper to-day as a means of carrying out the hon. and gallant Gentleman's wishes?

Mr. Shinwell: Does the First Lord not think that to give men a pension of 15s. at the age of 60 is most unfair, having


regard to the fact that they are deprived of the opportunity of obtaining other employment?

Mr. Cooper: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Shinwell: Will not the right hon. Gentleman, as First Lord of the Admiralty, give his opinion?

AIRCRAFT-CARRIER FURIOUS " (MAN'S DEATH).

23. Mr. Thorne: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the House any information in connection with the death of the man Marples who was found in the sealed cabin on board the aircraft-carrier "Furious," stationed at Plymouth; and whether the wallet that was taken from his pocket has been found?

Mr. Cooper: An inquest into the circumstances of this man's death is to be held to-morrow. Pending the result of it I cannot make any statement on the subject.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

24. Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, how many cases have been brought to his notice of men serving in the Royal Navy whose wives and children are drawing relief from public assistance committees; and whether he will make inquiries?

Mr. Cooper: The Board of Admiralty know that there are cases of the kind to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but they are confined to men who have married under the age of 25, and every step is taken to ensure that men who join the Navy shall be made aware that they will not be entitled to marriage allowance if they marry under that age.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Having regard to the modern view about the age at which one should marry, would the right hon. Gentleman consider some reduction in the age 25, which seems unnecessarily high?

Mr. Cooper: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware that this is a question that affects all the Services, and that one Service Minister could not give an undertaking or express a view.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consult the heads of the other Services in this matter?

Mr. Macquisten: Are not all the men in the Services medically examined and seen to be fit, and should not they be encouraged to marry so as to keep up the stock?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Could all this information be made available to the Minister of Health, in connection with his population statistics?

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "MOY" (STOKER'S DEATH).

25. Sir Cooper Rawson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he has yet any announcement to make with regard to the death of the late Oliver William Johnson, stoker, first-class, official number C/KX 85,597, who was lost while serving on His Majesty's Ship "Moy," and the refusal of a pension?

Mr. Cooper: Inquiries have not yet been completed in this case. A decision will be reached as soon as possible.

TORPEDO FACTORY EMPLOYÉS, GREENOCK (HOSPITAL SERVICES).

26. Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Greenock Royal Infirmary rendered services to the value of £1,350 17s. 6d. on behalf of persons employed at the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory, Greenock, during the year to 31st October, 1937; that during that period only £550 was allocated from the hospitals fund of the torpedo factory to the Greenock Royal Infirmary; that the smallness of this contribution is a cause of misgiving to the workers and is due to the fact that arrangements have not yet been made for deductions from the wages of unestablished workers at the torpedo factory for the hospitals fund; and whether he is now in a position to say when such deductions will commence?

Mr. Cooper: As the moneys received by the hospital and local charities fund of the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory are distributed locally and without reference to the Admiralty, I was unaware of the figures mentioned in the question. The Admiralty cannot apply to the Greenock Torpedo Factory a different procedure from that observed in similar establishments elsewhere. Until, therefore, the general question of a scheme of deductions from pay for hospital purposes is


settled, it will not be possible to grant such facilities to the workpeople at Greenock.

Mr. Gibson: Would the First Lord say when a settlement will be arrived at, as I was informed by the Minister in July that the matter was under consideration?

Mr. Cooper: I hope that a decision will be reached in the near future, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that it depends mainly, if not entirely, on the evidence.

Mr. George Griffiths: Why do you not stop the levy out of their wages, as they have agreed to it?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (DEFENCE COURSES).

20. Sir Robert Rankin: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officers of the Mercantile Marine have made use during the current year of the new facilities available for training men in the use of guns and other activities which might be required in the event of an emergency?

Mr. Cooper: Since they began on 30th August last, the Merchant Navy Defence Courses have been attended by I,468 officers, of whom I,236 have now completed the course of instruction.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

MR. TECLE HAWARIATE.

27. Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds Mr. Tecle Hawariate, recently Ethiopian delegate to the League of Nations, has been refused permission to reside in Kenya?

29. Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds Mr. Tecle Hawariate has been refused permission to remain in Kenya?

30. Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds the decision has been taken to refuse permission to Mr. Tecle Hawariate, Ethiopian delegate to the League of Nations in 1935, to reside in Kenya?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): In September last

Mr. Tecle Hawariate applied to the Government of Kenya through the Government of Aden, where he was living, for permission to visit the Colony for a period of three months in connection with the purchase of sesame seed. As the visit was to be of a temporary nature, the necessary permission was given. Subsequently, he asked to be allowed to establish himself and his family as permanent residents in the Colony. I understand that permission to do so was, however, refused by the Government of Kenya. His Majesty's Government do not consider that the Governments of British Dependencies bordering on Ethiopia should add to their responsibilities by facilitating the entry into those territories of Ethiopian subjects other than those who may take refuge coming directly from Abyssinia, and to whom it may not be possible to refuse entry. Mr. Tecle Hawariate does not fall within this category. I have seen from a report in the Press that Mr. Hawariate has now left Kenya.

Mr. Henderson: Might I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether this gentleman is not of the highest respectability and whether, in view of that fact, it is desirable to refuse the right of asylum to this distinguished gentleman?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I ought to answer the question, and I reply, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that there is no objection to Palestine or any British territory, provided it does not immediately border on Ethiopia, in the present circumstances.

Mr. Henderson: Is there any suggestion that this gentleman intends to carry on activities which would be inconsistent with the right of asylum?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, none at all, but I think it is obviously undesirable, in the general circumstances, and liable to misconstruction.

ABYSSINIAN REFUGEES.

28. Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a further statement regarding the condition and future prospects of the Abyssinian refugees in Kenya?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have nothing to add to the replies given to the hon.


Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) on 3rd November and to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 29th November.

Mr. Riley: Can the Minister assure the House that none of these refugees will be returned to Abyssinia against their will?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: This matter was very carefully considered, in a long reply, and I can give no further assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN COLONIES (HIGHER EDUCATION).

35. Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Crown Colonies possess native universities and secondary schools; and what percentage of the native inhabitants of the Crown Colonies were literate in 1917 and 1937, respectively?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There are universities open to all in Malta and Hong Kong, and a medical college of university standard, similarly open to all, in Singapore. Secondary schools open to non-Europeans exist in all dependencies with non-European communities, with very few exceptions. I will see whether the information asked for in the last part of the question is obtainable.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that has been made?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: We should always like to see more.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

SIR ARTHUR WAUCHOPE.

31. Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how long the Governor of Palestine, Sir Arthur Wauchope, is remaining to transact his duties; and who is to succeed him?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have nothing to add at present to the statement which I made on 28th October in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), but I expect to be able to make an announcement shortly.

GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (HEBREW LANGUAGE).

32. Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that out of 270 British officers in the first division of the Civil Service in Palestine, 106 speak Arabic and only six Hebrew; and what steps he has taken and can take to improve this discrepancy?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: My hon. and gallant Friend quotes the figures given in the report of the Palestine Royal Commission, but he has overlooked a further statement, made in the same paragraph of the report, that there are also 20 officers who can speak both Arabic and Hebrew. I understand that in present circumstances when the bulk of the Arab population can speak no other language but Arabic, a knowledge of Arabic is found to be more generally useful to Government officers than a knowledge of Hebrew, but I propose to look further into the matter and to consider whether any special action is called for.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (SLEEPING SICKNESS).

33. Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information respecting the incidence of sleeping sickness in Nigeria; whether the number of victims is increasing; and what steps are being taken to combat the disease, including the improvement of sanitation in the native settlements and towns?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Figures for the last ten years show that there has been a considerable increase in the incidence of sleeping sickness in Nigeria. The Nigerian Government has been spending over £25,000 annually to combat the disease, and has recently decided to devote an extra £30,000 a year for five years towards the concentration of population in fly-free areas. As regards the last part of the question, I think that the hon. Member is under some misapprehension. Sleeping sickness is borne by the tsetse fly, which infests rural areas, and is consequently unaffected by urban sanitation.

Mr. Sorensen: While the right hon. Gentleman's statement may be perfectly correct, is it not a fact that nevertheless bad sanitation reduces the vitality of the


population of this area; and is it not desirable, from that standpoint, that the sanitation should be improved?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The improvement in sanitation during the last 40 years in West Africa has been very remarkable; great work has been done in that direction. But anybody, even the fittest white man, if he is bitten by an infected fly on a journey through bush, is just as liable to get sleeping sickness as an unfit man.

Mr. McEntee: Have any experiments been made in this area similar to those made, with some success, by the Russian Government, in the direction of spraying from aeroplanes?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The breeding habits and the whole habitat of the tsetse fly are such that that would be quite futile. There have been various international conferences in the Congo and in French West Africa, which are also affected, on the scientific treatment of the problem of the tsetse fly, but so far no sovereign remedy has been discovered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

BALLOON APRON, MANSTON.

36. Mr. De la Bère: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps have been taken to ensure a non-recurrence of balloons breaking away from the apron defences at Manston, Kent; and whether he will consider using special moorings in future to prevent any more balloons breaking away?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): Modifications to equipment are being introduced as a result of the experience gained which it is hoped will prevent a repetition of these occurrences.

Mr. De la Bère: As the Secretary of State for Air has broken away from his moorings in this House, would it be possible to have a Secretary of State for Air moored in the House of Commons?

REGENT FACTORY, LINLITHGOW.

37. Mr. Mathers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that men who had been passed for employment by his Department at the Regent Factory, Linlithgow, have been informed that, owing to a change of policy

on the part of the Air Ministry, they are not now required; what change of policy is referred to; and what are the future prospects of employment for the men who have been medically examined and passed?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: When work on the contracts placed with the factory referred to was first commenced, it was anticipated that detailed inspection by Air Ministry staff would be necessary. The development of the organisation and the methods of manufacture of the firm made it possible for adequate inspection to be provided by a smaller staff. In consequence, some men who had been passed as suitable for employment will not be required, and they have been advised to apply to the Regent Factory for employment.

Mr. Mathers: Has this preparatory recruitment by the Air Ministry militated against these men being employed on the productive side?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am not aware of that. If the hon. Member thinks there is anything that should be brought to my notice on the point, perhaps he will do so.

38. Mr. Mathers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total number of men placed in employment by his Department in the Regent Factory, Linlithgow, since it reopened; how many of these men were previously resident in the county of Linlithgow; and how many were sent from England?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The answer to the first part of the question is 33; to the second part 16; and to the third part five.

LAND PURCHASE, LANGTON OUSE ESTATE.

39. Mr. Riley: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in connection with the claim for £43,626 by University College, Oxford, for the Langton Ouse Estate, the Air Ministry has had an independent valuation made; and, if so, what is the value placed on this estate by the independent valuer?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Yes, Sir, the Air Ministry obtained an independent valuation of the land prior to arbitration, and the amount was £17,220.

COMMUNICATIONS.

44. Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he cart


give an assurance that, if in the event of war the Air Ministry communications were completely disabled, the control of the Royal Air Force could be effectively maintained from alternative headquarters; and whether specific plans to meet this contingency are detailed and complete?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: All possible precautions are being taken to cover contingencies of the nature indicated in the hon. Member's question. He will, I trust, appreciate that it would not be desirable to specify them in detail.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I have from the Minister the perfectly simple assurance that the specific precaution about which my question asks has been taken? How can it be contrary to the public interest, if this elementary precaution has been taken, that a statement should be made that it has been taken?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think that personally my Noble Friend is satisfied that the advance made in this direction is satisfactory. I merely wished to indicate to the hon. Member that this is necessarily a secret subject on which one could not enter into details.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that well informed quarters are of opinion that no such adequate precautions have been taken? As I am sure he is not going to give me an answer to my question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House at the first convenient opportunity.

FRONT-LINE STRENGTH.

52. Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can make a statement indicative of the present front-line strength of the Royal Air Force; and, in particular, whether the rate of delivery of light and heavy bombers, and their formation into units, is proceeding at a more rapid rate than heretofore?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: As regards the first part of the question, there are at present 123 squadrons in the Metropolitan Air Force and 26 squadrons overseas, in addition to the equivalent of 20 squadrons in the Fleet Air Arm. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Simmonds: Are these 123 squadrons all at full strength, both as to pilots and machines?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: ; No, they are not.

ACCIDENTS.

53. Mr. McEntee: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement in regard to the three light bomber-type airplanes of the Oxfordshire squadron which crashed during the flight to Penrhos on Monday, 29th November, when one pilot was killed and two injured; how many airplanes were engaged in the flight; what types of machines crashed; and whether he is satisfied that the construction of the machines concerned was not at fault?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The facts, so far as are at present known, are these: Eighteen aircraft took off from No. 2 Flying Training School, Brize Norton, on 29th November last to fly to Penrhos. Bad weather was experienced during the later stages of the flight. One of the aircraft returned to Brize Norton, To landed at Sealand, four landed at Penrhos, and three crashed. Two of the aircraft that crashed were Audax and one a Hart. The preliminary investigations so far carried out have not disclosed any failure in the construction of the machines.

Mr. McEntee: In view of the very high proportion of the 18 setting out that failed to reach their destination, is any public inquiry being held with regard to the causes of the failure?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: There will be a court of inquiry, naturally, on the cause of the crashes. We shall then get a great deal more detail in this connection. At the moment, I have given the hon. Member all the information in our posesssion.

VOLUNTEER RESERVE (FACILITIES, WEST MIDLANDS).

55. Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the disadvantages which persons resident in the West Midlands who are training, or desire to train, in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve are under at the present time; that the aerodrome at Castle Bromwich is the only one available, that no machines other than those for training can be used, and that those in other parts of the country are able to pass through


the course much more rapidly and obtain commissions, and whether he will consider the advisability of making arrangements for the use of another aerodrome, such as Wolverhampton, for this purpose?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The Air Ministry are aware of the need for the provision of adequate facilities for the training of Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve pilots in the West Midlands district, and hope to conclude satisfactory arrangements in the near future for the use of the new Birmingham Municipal Aerodrome for this purpose.

Mr. Mander: Is it not a fact that that aerodrome will not be ready for a year or more, and that there are a number of persons in Wolverhampton and the West Midlands who are willing to join this Reserve now, and are only prevented by the absence of facilities?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: We are well aware of the desire to get facilities as soon as possible, but these are the arrangements we are now making with the Birmingham Municipal Aerodrome.

Mr. Mander: But is it not the case that the Birmingham Municipal Aerodrome will not be ready for a long time? Will the hon. Gentleman say how soon it will be ready?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURE, SCOTLAND.

40. Mr. Mathers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has considered the recommendation in the annual report by the Aviation Committee of the Scottish Development Council that the Government should encourage aircraft manufacture in Scotland; and whether he has any statement to make?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I have not received a copy of the annual report referred to, but a deputation from the Scottish Development Council was received last year, when it was explained that the firms for the manufacture of aircraft and aero engines had already been selected, but that firms in Scotland could assist by undertaking sub-contract work for the main firms employed. A list of the main

firms was furnished, and it was understood that the Council would adopt the suggestion that they should forward to these firms a list of Scottish firms able and willing to undertake such contract work. I should add that a large aircraft factory is being erected by Messrs. Denny in conjunction with Messrs. Blackburn, and that this factory will undertake a large amount of work.

Mr. Mathers: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman put himself in possession of the report, in order that he may see the recommendations which it embodies?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Yes, Sir, I will make a point of reading it.

LANDING FACILITIES, STORNOWAY.

42. Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what the present position is regarding the preparation of a landing field at Stornoway, Isle of Lewis; and when a regular air service between the island of Lewis and the mainland will begin?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Proposals for development of a land aerodrome at Steinish, Stornoway, which were put forward in 1935, did not provide for an adequate area for the use of regular air services. As was stated on 2nd March and 8th April, 1936, the Air Ministry has advised as to the work which will require to be carried out. I understand that so far considerations of cost of preparation of a larger area have precluded further progress. A regular air service cannot be operated until a suitable aerodrome is provided at Stornoway.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the Under-Secretary aware that almost all the other small islands of the Outer Hebrides have these facilities, and that only this island, which is the most important, is excluded? The slowness of the progress made is very unsatisfactory. The Air Ministry have done very little to encourage aviation in this district.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: As I said in my answer, the Air Ministry have advised as to the work which ought to be carried out. The negotiations are a matter for the locality.

ACCIDENTS.

54. Mr. McEntee: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the large number of accidents to


civil airplanes leaving registered airports in this country which are due to adverse weather conditions, he will take the necessary steps to see that the taking-off of aircraft in such cases should not be left to the discretion of pilots, but that a responsible official should be on duty at such airports with power to override a pilot's decision to take off where he considered it dangerous to the passengers or crew that the pilot should do so?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 27th January last.

Mr. McEntee: In view of the fact that pilots have to make this decision on their own, and also in view of the fact that they are men employed, would the hon. Member not agree that they would be inclined to take unnecessary risks, for fear of losing their employment?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I would not accept that. I think it must be agreed that the person who eventually has to exercise his discretion as to the safety of the passengers must be the pilot himself. He is naturally given all information at the aerodrome, but I do not think it would be in the public interest that a person other than the pilot should be given ultimate discretion.

56. Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total number of lives lost as a result of air-liners taking off in Q.B.I. conditions from Croydon aerodrome since 1st December, 1936?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Eighteen, in two accidents.

Mr. Montague: Is any responsibility accepted at Croydon for the cockpit equipment of foreign planes?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I could not say that off-hand. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down.

Mr. Thurtle: For the information of the House, would the hon. Gentleman say what is the derivation of these initials, Q.B.I.?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No, I am afraid I cannot.

NIGHT FLYING.

57. Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the de

Haviland air-lines known as the 86A and 86B are licensed to fly with passengers by night?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The certificates of airworthiness still in force for D.H. 86A aircraft contain a condition prohibiting night flying, but all these aircraft are being converted to D.H. 86B type. No such restrictive condition is applied in respect of certificates of airworthiness granted for D.H. 86B aircraft; but all aircraft carrying out flights by night are obliged to carry certain equipment laid down in Regulations.

Mr. Perkins: Do I understand from the Minister's answer, which I could not hear, that D.H. 86A machines are not allowed to carry out night flying?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Yes, that is SO.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

45. Mr. Simmonds: asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a Standing Committee to review all new proposals of all Government Departments, in the light of the possibility of enemy air attack, and to advise?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The Committee of Imperial Defence and its standing sub-committees provide facilities for reviewing every form of enemy air attack and for advising on the measures required for countering them.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL CONVERSATIONS.

46. Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now any statement to make with reference to the conversations which took place on the recent visit of the French Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the statement which I made yesterday in answer to a Private Notice question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

47. Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now inform the House whether the questions discussed between the Lord President of the Council and the representatives of Germany included the return of the German colonies, the abandonment or restriction of the League's policy of collective


security, the reform of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the aims of Germany in Czechoslovakia and in Austria; and what views the Lord President was authorised to express on behalf of the British Government?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the statements which I made last week on the subject of the visit of Lord Halifax to Germany.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman then said nothing with regard to the subjects that were discussed? I am asking whether the subjects mentioned in my question were discussed; surely the Prime Minister can give me an answer?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I cannot add anything to my previous statements.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

OIL EXTRACTION (FALMOUTH COMMITTEE).

48 and 49. Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (I) when the report of the Falmouth Committee will be completed, and when it will be available to Members;
(2) the number of processes for extracting oil from coal which have been investigated by the Falmouth Committee to date, and how many of these are British; how many people have offered to give evidence before the Falmouth Committee and how many have been refused; and how many people have been invited to give evidence and the names of those who have accepted?

51. Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence when the report of the Falmouth Committee will be completed; and whether it will he issued as a Command Paper?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am informed that the Falmouth Committee have now completed their report, and that it will be submitted to me during the next few days. Until I have seen the report, I cannot say whether it will be published. In any case there can be no question of disclosing confidential information contained in the report. I recognise, however, the great interest which the House has taken in this matter,

and I shall bear that in mind in considering the question of any publication. As regards the questions concerning the evidence which has been placed before the committee, I am not in a position to answer these except in connection with the question of publication.

50. Mr. Edwards: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he will replace Professor Egerton, a member of the Falmouth Committee, who has accepted a post with an oil company, by someone who has no interest in the production or distribution of oil, in view of the importance of having an impartial investigation into the matters referred to this committee?

Sir T. Inskip: I am informed that Professor Egerton, who is Professor of Chemical Technology at the Imperial College of Science, has been acting as adviser, together with other scientists, to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company on scientific questions since November, 1936. It is not the fact that he has accepted any post with an oil company which gives him an interest in the production or distribution of oil. No question, therefore, arises as to his replacement.

Mr. Edwards: Is it not a fact that a promise was given to this House that the committee would be composed entirely of people without any direct or indirect interest in the production or distribution of oil?

Sir T. Inskip: As I 'have said, Professor Egerton has no direct or indirect interest in the production or distribution of oil.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Do we understand that Professor Egerton is a paid employe of this oil company?

Sir T. Inskip: No, he is not a paid employé. I have stated the position quite accurately in the answer I have given, that he has acted for a year as an adviser, together with other scientists, to advise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company on scientific subjects.

Mr. Attlee: Is he a paid adviser or an unpaid adviser?

Sir T. Inskip: He is remunerated, I am informed, by the Principal in Science of the Imperial College of Science by a sum, of which I have no information, which is in the nature of a retaining fee to enable him to give his services as required for scientific questions.

Mr. Attlee: What is the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of direct interest in an oil company? Surely employment on a retaining fee is direct interest in that company?

Sir T. Inskip: It is a matter of opinion, but I should not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is the case, any more than it could be said that a member of the legal profession is interested in any companies which from time to time he is called upon to advise.

Mr. Attlee: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider it correct procedure for a barrister who is in possession of a permanent retaining fee from a company acting an an arbitrator in an independent capacity?

Sir T. Inskip: I do not accept that as an accurate description of Professor Egerton's position. He was only called upon to investigate a question that his peculiar scientific knowledge concerning the production of oil from coal fitted him to investigate, and I suggest to the House that there is nothing in the position he has occupied which conflicts with his duties in that respect.

Mr. Attlee: I understand he Las been paid on behalf of the company to investigate certain processes of obtaining oil from coal. Surely, that puts him in a position of being interested in those processes?

Sir T. Inskip: I cannot accept the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has last made. I think I accurately stated the position. The Professor is called upon from time to time to advise the company on scientific questions.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask if this gentleman was engaged by the company after he was appointed to the committee?

Sir T. Inskip: No; I speak subject to correction, but I think he accepted the position with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company before he was appointed to the committee.

Mr. A. Henderson: Does he receive an annual payment, or, on the analogy of the barrister, does he receive a fee for each opinion?

Sir T. Inskip: He has only held the position for one year, and I understand he receives a retaining fee. It is paid, so far, annually.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

80. Mr. Parker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to build up local emergency supplies of food to be available in war time; and whether individual families are being encouraged and assisted to establish supplies of their own?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. V. Adams) on 3rd November by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

Sir Arthur Salter: In view of the fact that a full year has elapsed since the creation of the Food Defence Plans Department, is it not high time that the Government should be in a position to take a decision at least on the main principle of food storage?

Captain Wallace: If the hon. Member will look at the answer given on the date referred to, he will see that a large number of questions and answers have been exchanged on the subject which, I think, goes to the root of the matter.

Sir A. Salter: With great respect, does the Minister suggest that that answer indicates that the Government have taken a decision on the main question of principle?

Oral Answers to Questions — BLENHEIM BOMBERS (FINLAND).

58. Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any licence has been granted to Finland to manufacture Blenheim bombers; and whether it is contemplated exporting either the complete aircraft or any parts of this aircraft to Finland?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MAIN ROADS (LIGHTING).

60 and 61. Mr. Lyons: asked the Minister of Transport (I) whether he will indicate where and to what extent illumination of main roads has already been


undertaken under the provisions of Section 6 (4) of the Trunk Roads Act, 1936;
(2) whether he will indicate where any further illumination of main roads has been arranged or provided for under Section 6 (4) of the Trunk Roads Act, 1936?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I have not yet exercised my powers under this Sub-section but will shortly notify local authorities that where they consider that portions of trunk roads should be illuminated or better illuminated to standards which conform reasonably to those recommended for traffic routes by the Departmental Committee on Street Lighting, I shall, in certain circumstances, be prepared after 1st April, 1938, to enter into agreements with them whereby I shall contribute 50 per cent. of the capital cost and 50 per cent. of the annual cost of maintenance.

Mr. Lyons: In view of the great importance of this topic, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why he has not exercised the powers which he has under the Statute before to-day?

Mr. Burgin: The Departmental Committee has just reported in regard to these powers.

Mr. Lyons: Is it not the fact that the power which the Minister has is given in the Trunk Roads Act, 1936, irrespective entirely of any findings of the Departmental Committee?

Mr. Burgin: Even so, the roads have only been trunk roads for a little over six months.

Mr. Lyons: Is it the fact that in the report of the Departmental Committee they expressly refer to the fact that, without any recommendation of theirs, the Minister has already the authority given by this House to exercise his powers under that very important Sub-section?

68. Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the increasing danger arising on the highways through lack of lighting arrangements; and when he intends to make a statement on this question?

Mr. Burgin: I know of no evidence in support of the assumption in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the

hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons).

Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries about the East Lancashire Road, as he will find out that there are an increasing number of accidents taking place there because of the bad lighting?

Mr. Burgin: I will certainly make inquiries. I have driven the length of that road both ways recently two or three times.

FIVE-YEAR ROAD PLAN (HIGHLAND COUNTIES).

62. Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Minister of Transport from what date the 100 per cent. grant five-year plan for the Highland counties is calculated to have begun; what proportion of the total money available has been spent to the latest convenient date; and whether he is satisfied with the progress being made?

Mr. Burgin: The first contract from my Department was let in August, 1936. On 31st October, 1937, the total value of works completed and in progress, either by direct labour or by contract amounted approximately to £I,800,000, in respect of which payments of about £540,000 have been made. I am satisfied with the progress made.

ARTERIAL ROAD (WALES).

63. Mr. I. Guest: asked the Minister of Transport what is the present position with regard to the possibility of constructing an adequate arterial road between North and South Wales; and whether he is aware of the urgency thereof?

Mr. Burgin: While I have heard unofficially of suggestions to this end, I am not aware that a new road between North and South Wales is urgently required, and I have received no proposals for its construction from any highway authority.

SPEED LIMIT (FALLODEN WAY).

64. Mr. Crowder: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statement to make regarding the imposition of a 30 miles-per-hour speed limit on the roads known as Falloden Way and Lyttleton Road, in the Hampstead Garden Suburb area?

65. Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered a report from the London and


Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee regarding the dangers to road users in Falloden Way, East Finchley; and will he, as an emergency safety measure, immediately reimpose the speed limit on this residential road?

Mr. Burgin: Upon receipt of a recommendation from the London Traffic Advisory Committee I have decided to give notice forthwith of my intention to introduce the speed limit of 30 miles per hour in Falloden Way between Greenhalgh Walk and Brookland Rise—a distance of about half a mile.

Mr. Crowder: Will my right hon. Friend consider making arrangements with the Commissioner of Police to have a police car on these roads for the next few weeks to see whether the speed limit is observed, and also to report upon the altered condition?

Mr. Leach: Will the Minister, in view of the exceedingly favourable answer which he has just given, now look into the question of those authorities who have been refused the right to restrict their roads?

MOTOR DRIVING OFFENCES.

66. Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the growing tendency of magistrates not to disqualify from holding a licence motorists convicted of bad driving offences, he will take further steps to define the offences for which the penalty must, in all cases, be disqualification?

Mr. Burgin: For certain offences the courts must disqualify unless they see special reason to the contrary; to remove this discretion would, I am afraid, result in a tendency for the courts to refuse to convict in cases where they thought the penalty would be excessive. Disqualification for serious driving offences is not becoming less common.

Mr. Adams: Does not the Minister know that I am calling his attention to the case of bad driving offences, and does he not think that disqualification should always follow?

Mr. Burgin: This must be a matter for the discretion of the courts, and while it is a remedy of which I appreciate the usefulness, I think that the assumption of

the hon. Member that the disqualification is becoming less common is mistaken. The figures are the other way.

87. Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the growing tendency of magistrates not to disqualify from holding a licence motorists convicted of bad driving offences, he will state whether the intentions of the Government still remain, as expressed in the Home Office circular to migistrates of 22nd September, 1936, that suspension or endorsement of licences should be the normal consequence of conviction for bad driving offences?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The circular letter of September, 1936, called attention to the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts and pointed out that it was clearly the intention of Parliament that suspension or endorsement of the offender's driving licence should be the normal consequence of conviction of certain offences. My right hon. Friend has no evidence to support the suggestion in the first part of the question, but he entirely endorses the view that it is still most important for the Court to give full effect to the statutory provisions on this subject.

TROLLEY-OMNIBUSES (SPEED).

67. Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport how many complaints he has received during the last 12 months respecting the excessive speed of trolley-omnibuses; and how many persons have been killed or injured in the Metropolitan police area during the same period?

Mr. Burgin: None, Sir. The numbers of persons killed or injured in road accidents in the Metropolitan Police District during the twelve months ended 30th September, 1937, were:

Killed
…
…
1,080


Injured
…
…
56,546


Total
…
…
57,626

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that, in fact, no complaints have been sent in because of the death of, or injury to, some of the people to whom he refers?

Mr. Burgin: The question of the hon. Member is whether I have received complaints during the last 12 months respecting the excessive speed of trolley-omnibuses? I have not.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many local authorities have complained about the dangerous speed of these particular vehicles—

Mr. Burgin: No, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: —and will he, therefore, make special inquiries into the matter?

Mr. Burgin: I will certainly inquire, but I made an inquiry before giving my answer to the House. I have not received any such complaints.

Mr. Sorensen: Well, I make one now.

MOTOR VEHICLES (CLASSIFICATION).

69. Mr. Maxwell: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the recent High Court decision restricting the speed of utility cars to 30 miles an hour, he will consider taking the necessary steps to amend the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, relating to the classification of vehicles for the purposes of the speed limit, with a view to ensuring that no such limit shall in future be placed on the speed of these vehicles?

Mr. Burgin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer on this point given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) on 10th November.

OMNIBUS SERVICE, KILMARNOCK— GLASGOW.

70. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company and the Western Scottish Motor Transport Company, Limited, have taken no action following the report, dated 16th September, 1936, by the commissioner on the appeal by the Kilmarnock Town Council against the refusal of the traffic commissioners for the Southern Scotland area to fix a reduced maximum rate for season tickets between Kilmarnock and Glasgow in respect of road service licences granted to the Western Scottish Motor Transport Company; and whether he is prepared to take action to secure a reduction in the present excessive fare and so rectify the hardship suffered by regular travellers by

omnibus between Kilmarnock and Glasgow since 1930 when the season ticket rate was increased from £13 15S. to £20 12s. per annum?

Mr. Burgin: A decision on this appeal having been given by my predecessor, I have no power to re-open the matter.

POLICE PATROL MOTOR CARS.

71. Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Transport from what localities applications have been received for his consent to enable chief constables to use identification marks and numbers on a police patrol motor car which vary from the marks and numbers stated on the Road Fund licence displayed on the motor car?

Mr. Burgin: I do not think the public interest would be served by my specifying the particular localities in which this exceptional course has been adopted.

Mr. Kelly: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman state, even if not specifying the district, how many of these applications he has received, as this practice is growing and is not to the advantage of the Force?

Mr. Burgin: My information is that the Commissioner of Police is satisfied that any practice of this kind is of utility only in very special circumstances, and I agree.

Mr. Kelly: By the Commissioner of Police, does the right hon. Gentleman mean London? I also asked about places other than London.

88. Mr. Kelly: asked the Home Secretary why the practice at one time obtaining in the Metropolitan police of changing the identification mark and number of police motor cars was discontinued; and whether he will state the nature of any Home Office memoranda to provincial chief constables in respect of this practice?

Mr. Lloyd: The Commissioner of Police is satisfied that under the conditions obtaining in London any such practice is of utility only in very special circumstances. No memorandum has been issued by the Home Office to provincial chief constables on the subject.

Mr. Kelly: May I ask when this practice was discontinued, particularly having regard to the answer given by the Minister of Transport this afternoon?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot give the exact date, but there has been a change of ideas in regard to this matter and it is not the intention to continue them.

Mr. De la Bère: May I ask what the British Broadcasting Corporation did on 7th May?

CHILDREN'S SAFETY CRUSADE.

73. Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport whether lie is aware that the Children's Safety Crusade, to which a subsidy was granted by the Government, has published a printed folder containing the statement that many laws and regulations involve unfair treatment to motorists; and whether he will represent o this society the undesirability of their issuing such propaganda?

Mr. Burgin: I have not seen the folder to which the hon. Member refers. The activities of the Crusade are not controlled by the Government, and pending fulfilment of the conditions antecedent to grant, no financial aid has been given.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I sent him a copy of this folder last night? If when he receives it he discovers the definite statement that motorists are suffering harshly from existing laws, will he then take steps to bring the matter to the attention of the Safety Crusade, to which the Government grants £5,000 by way of subsidy?

Mr. Burgin: I think that the hon. Member must have confused the address. Nothing has reached me.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire among his colleagues to see whether they have taken it?

HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES (GRANTS).

74. Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Transport the percentage of the grant made to the highway authorities in Great Britain in respect of all roads in built-up areas and in areas not built-up; and the general conditions attached to receipt of grant?

Mr. Burgin: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the circular letter to highway authorities which gives the information he requires.

ROAD COMMUNICATIONS, WEST CUMBERLAND.

75. Mr. F. Anderson: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has

been called to the recent heavy snowfall on the Penrith-Shap road, causing serious delay to traffic, some lorries being stranded for several days; and will he, before expending moneys on the road referred to, consider favourably the West Coast road, as proposed by the Cumberland County Council, becoming the main trunk road and thus avoid the treacherous route via Shap?

Mr. Burgin: I have tinder consideration the proposals of the county council for better road communication in West Cumberland. I have, however, no power to amend the schedule to the Trunk Roads Act in the manner suggested, nor do I think that there is any ground for doing so.

UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS (NATIONAL EMERGENCIES).

76. Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give assurances that the destruction or failure of one or more power stations would not destroy the ventilation system of the underground railways for use as non-electrical transport routes or as shelters; and whether plans are prepared to give effect to these potential uses of the underground routes?

Mr. Burgin: I am well aware of the importance of these matters. As regards the possibility of using underground railways as public shelters, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave to the hon. Member for South Islington (Mr. Cluse) on 28th October.

Mr. Garro Jones: Why cannot the Minister reply to the first part of my question? Is he not able to give me a specific reply to it? Is he not confusing the public interest with the Government interest in hiding their neglect in not taking these precautions?

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND REGISTRATION (MAPPING SURVEYS).

77. Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Attorney-General whether he will accelerate the completion of the mapping surveys so that initiating orders under Section 120 of the Land Registry Act, 1925, may be put into operation, as the delay in adding to the number of


counties which might benefit by the compulsory registration of land on sale is not in the public interest; and will he state the reason for the slow progress in completing the surveys?

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): The question of accelerating the mapping of areas in which compulsory registration is necessary is under discussion and very careful consideration between the Departments concerned, and it is premature at present to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINIONS (NAVAL DEFENCE, EXPENDITURE).

78. Sir R. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is the present expenditure of the Dominions upon Naval Defence; and how this compares with the total for 1925 and the immediate pre-war period, respectively?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Marquess of Hartington): With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures showing the expenditure of Australia and New Zealand on Naval Defence for the years in question. The corresponding figures for Canada and the Union of South Africa are not at present in my right hon. Friend's possession, but inquiries are being made, and I will communicate the results as soon as possible to my hon. Friend.

Following are the figures:


—
1913–14 Actual.
1925–26 Actual.
1937–38 Estimated



£
£
£


Australia
1,991,212
3,575,011
3,694,887


New Zealand
296,030
441,203
734,797

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE MIGRATION.

79. Sir R. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that since 1931 the number of persons returning to the United Kingdom from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand has exceeded the number of persons migrating to those Dominions by nearly 100,000; and whether he is satisfied that adequate steps are being taken to reverse this flow and produce conditions which at an early date will lead to

a balance of emigration from this country to the Dominions instead of from the Dominions to the United Kingdom?

Marquess of Hartington: I am aware that the position is as stated in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. I would point out, however, that the inward flow does not, generally speaking, vary greatly from year to year. The inward balance is due to the relatively small numbers of people leaving this country for the Dominions in question during recent years. As regards the second part of the question, the Empire Settlement Acts, 1922 and 1937, provide the Government with ample powers for facilitating the movement of assisted migrants from the United Kingdom to the Dominions, as soon as the latter are in a position to co-operate and to receive them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TYPHOID, INDIA (INOCULATION).

84. Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the statement made at page 92 of the report on the Health of the Army for 1935 that 30 per cent. of all typhoid cases among troops in India occur within six months of inoculation and that nearly every year the highest percentage of cases occur within 12 months of inoculation, he will consider the possibility of inoculating any men who may be sent to India 12 months before they are likely to embark?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): My right hon. Friend is advised that inoculation 12 months prior to embarkation would not confer additional protection. The majority of cases of typhoid occur during the first 12 months of service in India among persons who do not obtain immunity by inoculation.

CAVALRY REGIMENTS (MECHANISATION).

86. Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War the intentions of the Government with regard to the future status of the three senior cavalry regiments of the line, namely, the 1st Dragoon Guards, the 3rd /6th Dragoon Guards, and the 4th/7th Dragoon Guards?

Sir V. Warrender: The first three cavalry regiments of the line in order of precedence are the 1st King's Dragoon Guards, The Queen's Bays and the 3rd


Carabiniers. The 1st King's Dragoon Guards are being mechanised on their arrival from India this month. The Queen's Bays are already mechanised. The 3rd Carabiniers are in India and will be mechanised in accordance with the Indian mechanisation programme.

Mr. Turton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the statement made by the Minister for War on 2nd November about the status of these cavalry regiments has given rise to a good deal of misapprehension?

Oral Answers to Questions — TAX COLLECTORS (OVERTIME).

89. Mr. Kelly: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the feeling of dissatisfaction among collectors of taxes and their staffs against the present system of enforced time off in lieu of overtime; and whether he is prepared to apply the usual Civil Service conditions for payment of overtime pending settlement of future conditions by the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I am aware that the Staff Association representing the collectors and their staffs has given notice to terminate, as from 30th October, 1937, the agreement made in 1933 with regard to overtime, and that it has been found impossible to agree on a new arrangement. The matter is being referred to the Arbitration Tribunal, and pending an award the Board of Inland Revenue propose to continue the status quowith some minor improvements. I see no reason to intervene in the matter.

Mr. Kelly: In view of the feeling there is among these collectors, arid the meetings they are holding at the present time, will the right hon. and gallant Member speed up the hearing of this case, in order to prevent a stoppage of work in January?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Every effort will be made.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

COMPANIES ACTS.

Mr. Bellenger: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the need for amending the Companies Acts, and move a Resolution.

CIVIL AND POLITICAL LIBERTY.

Mr. A. Jenkins: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North (Mr. G. Strauss), I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, he will call attention to the question of Civil and Political Liberty, and move a Resolution.

COST OF LIVING.

Mrs. Hardie: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Cost of Living, and move a Resolution.

NECESSITIES OF LIFE.

Mr. Montague: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the desirability of socialising certain Necessities of Life, and move a Resolution.

LAND NATIONALISATION.

Mr. Parker: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to Land Nationalisation, and move a Resolution.

POOR LAW (AMENDMENT).

Miss Ward: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise the payment by Poor Law authorities of personal allowances to pensioners of the age of sixty-five and over in Poor Law institutions.
In prefacing what I have to say in asking leave of the House to introduce this Bill, I should like to pay a tribute to Miss Olive Matthews, to whose interest in the welfare of old people in our Poor Law institutions the introduction of this Bill is primarily due. I should also like to pay a tribute to the junior Member for Preston (Captain Cobb), who has advocated both in this House and behind the scenes, the policy of paying pocket-money to old age pensioners in the institutions. That background of my Bill is a very simple one. For some reason, which is not very apparent to legislators of to-day, although it must have been apparent at the time when the Act was passed, the Contributory Pensions Act provided that any men or women entering an institution other than for medical treatment should forfeit their pensions to the State. The practical result of that condition has been that numbers of men and women, many of whom had done very useful service in the community for a number of years, were left without any


measure of independence, even that measure of independence which all of us enjoy when we feel that we have a small sum of money in our pockets which we can spend as and when we like.
An examination of what I may call our social records will show that these people are the only class of persons who are left in this completely penniless condition. Certain enlightened public authorities over a period of years, realising the hardships caused, have made payments illegally, I admit, to these old age pensioners, and it is the idea of trying to bring into harmony these illegal payments as well as promoting payments by local authorities who have not yet adopted such a policy, that I am asking the leave of the House to introduce the Bill. Obviously, the best way of dealing with the matter would be to amend the Contributory Pensions Act, but that I have no power to do, and I have not yet been able to obtain an assurance from the Minister of Health, though I believe him to be sympathetic to the principle underlying the Bill, that Parliamentary time would be provided to allow of the legal adjustments.
The purpose of the Bill is to give power to local authorities, if they so desire, to make weekly payments not exceeding 2s. to all pensioners of 65 years of age and upwards. I think this would be a very real benefit to these people who have to live year in and year out inside our institutions, many of them through no fault of their own entering an institution either because they have no one to look after them, or because there are not yet sufficient houses at low rents which will permit a single old age pensioner to live within his income, or married old age pensioners to live together. I feel quite certain that a permissive Bill of this nature will be a very real benefit, and I am glad to say that I have got the support of all parties in the House for it.
There are two points I must first mention. One is that I have fixed the maximum amount at 2S. because that, I believe, is an appropriate proportion of the 10s. which should be retained by the pensioner, having regard to the fact that he or she has no longer the cost of maintenance to provide. The other point is that I have had the temerity to make the

Bill apply to Scotland. I have done so with a certain amount of caution, because I am well aware of the fate which might overtake aay English Member who presumes to introduce a private Member's Bill which is to be applied to the other side of the Border. But I have, I think, safeguarded my position by getting two of my Scottish colleagues to back the Bill.
As I have said, I have the support of all parties in the House, and a very great deal of support has come to me from experienced members of institutional management committees and institution managers, who feel that a Bill of this kind will enable them to carry out the policy of making the institution as human as possible. I am quite certain in these days of grace, when we take a real pride in trying to remove the Poor Law stigma from our institutional life, that it will be a very valuable contribution to the amenities of institutional life. I hope in view of the general sympathetic support I seem to have received that the Bill will easily find its way to the Statute Book, and, if it does, I believe it will bring a good deal of happiness and a very much wider and greater interest into the lives of the old people themselves. I believe that the House of Commons by placing this Bill on the Statute Book will have achieved an object very well worth while.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Ward, Captain Cobb, Miss Cazalet, Mr. Hamilton Kerr, Captain Gunston, Dr. Leech, Mr. Magnay, Mr. Gluckstein, Lord William Scott, and Mr. Anstruther-Gray.

POOR LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL,

"to authorise the payment by Poor Law authorities of personal allowances to pensioners of the age of sixty-five and over in Poor Law institutions," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

DOMINICA BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

PENSIONS.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, immediate measures should be taken to establish a scheme of pensions on a scale which will facilitate and encourage elderly workers to retire from industry, and to remove certain anomalies in the operation of the existing law.
It is only 50 years since the distinguished father of the present Prime Minister conducted a ceaseless campaign in the Conservative party and in this House for the establishment of old age pensions. Joseph Chamberlain was not a man of half measures. Whatever he thought fit to do he did with his whole energy, and with most indomitable courage he pursued this policy with the same vigour and determination as he pursued every other question which he espoused. He met with many rebuffs, especially inside the Conservative party. The acceptance of the principle of old age pensions was more difficult than to get an extension of old age pensions. He fought a lonely fight in his own party for many years, but he succeeded in 1898 in getting the House of Commons to set up a Select Committee to go into the question, and they reported in 1899 in favour of pensions at 65 for necessitous and deserving poor throughout the country. When he was asked by a member of that Select Committee whether he himself as Colonial Secretary would stand by it—the questioner was no less a person than the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) —Mr. Chamberlain replied "Yes." A few weeks later the Boer War commenced. I have often felt that not the least tragedy of the Boer War was that it deflected the course of Joseph Chamberlain in social reform. I have felt the same as regards the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs; that not the least tragedy of the Great War was that it deflected him from his policy of social reform. That little historical allusion tells us what the fight has been in this country for over half a century on behalf of the aged people.
What surprises me is that the arguments of the Conservative party against an extension of old age pensions are the same to-day as they were against the principle. The Conservative party stand very much where they were in 1908. I have been

through the Debates of 1908 on the Second Reading of that Bill, and I have culled from them just one short statement by Lord Robert Cecil, who was then Member for Marylebone. He was seconding a reasoned Amendment to the Old Age Pensions Bill. Here is the statement:
He did not wish to be an alarmist, but he felt that with the vast responsibilities of this country they had in the last resort only the national character to depend upon. They had no right to assume that during the next 25 years they would have so peaceful a course to steer. No one who looks, even from outside, at the present international situation, could fail to see certain elements of difficulty and danger in the future, and if they had to enter upon a great life and death struggle, as might well happen, and they had weakened the fibre of their people by a system and by a policy of which this was only the beginning, then the statesmen in this House who had sanctioned that miserable backsliding from the true statesmanship of Empire would have much to answer for.
I find the spirit of that statement very much akin to the Amendment which is on the Order Paper to-day. However, I do not expect that anyone who intervenes to-day will advocate the policy of discontinuing State pensions for aged people; there will be general agreement that since the scheme is in operation it ought to continue.
With regard to the last sentence of my Motion, let me say this: There is a reference there to anomalies. That there are anomalies existing under the present law is admitted by all. I expect that every Member of the House, like myself, has had many cases brought to his notice. I shall refer very briefly to two sets of anomalies. First, there is the case of the man of 65 with a wife who is less than 65. A striking case of this sort I had brought to my notice during the Recess. The man is on unemployment benefit and is receiving 26s. for himself and his wife. When he attains 65 years, while his wife is only 62, the income of that old couple will drop at once from 26s. to 10s. I do hope that both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell us where they stand with regard to that anomaly. Are the Government in favour of removing the anomaly? The second case is that of the widow whose youngest child leaves school. Here is another case brought to my notice in my own division. It is the case of the widow with one child. The


child leaves school and gets work a few miles from home. Her travelling expenses and out of pocket expenses are equal to, if not in excess of, her wage. There is no pension for the mother or child because the mother is not 55 years of age.
Again I ask, will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury tell the House whether the Government intend to allow that to continue? It is an anomaly which inflicts very serious hardship on many deserving widows throughout the country. I am told there are some 40,000 of them, a diminishing quantity, but nevertheless these are cases that ought to be dealt with. The trouble does not arise there. We shall get general agreement on that one issue. The trouble with regard to the scheme hinted at in my Motion will arise on the question whether first of all it is desirable, and, next, whether it is practicable. I suggest that it is most desirable that men of 65 years of age, and women too, should be in a position to retire. That is my first reason for emphasising the desirability of such a scheme. Let us remember that these people of 65 have given at least 50 years of service to industry and the State. After such long service they are entitled to more consideration than they are now getting from this House. They are entitled to be in a position to say, "Here I am; I can not only retire, but I can live my retirement in decency and comfort."
The first reason for emphasising the desirability of my proposal is that the aged people of 65 are entitled to be in that position of retirement in decency and comfort. The second reason, and I do not wish to exaggerate it, is that the scheme would make some contribution to the solution of the problem of unemployment. I know that we shall differ about the figures, but suppose that I say this: The response to a decent pension at 65 would result in such a number of men and women giving up work as would find employment for quarter of a million who are unemployed. That is a very low estimate. But it would be some contribution and one that I should think any Government would welcome. It is a contribution which the quarter of a million unemployed would certainly welcome. It is desirable, there fore, that a scheme of the kind should be accepted.
My third reason is that the proposal would remove from the lives of those approaching 65 the worry and anxiety which are so paralysing. When a man sees 65 coming and realises the possibility of his being told those heart-rending words "Your services are no longer required," he would like to know that at that age he would be able to hear those words with less anxiety. There are those—I hope they are not in this House—who seem to think that poverty and penury and hardship and insecurity urge a man to give of his best in industry. I doubt whether that is so, and I can never understand the mentality of any individual who thinks so. I have yet to be convinced that worry and anxiety have enabled any man to add to the quantity of his output or to improve its quality. This scheme would remove the sense of worry and anxiety, and in doing that it would be an economic factor of inestimable value. I shall leave the desirability of the scheme there.
Now I come to a wide divergence of view. I expect that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment will say that they support the desirability of this scheme and that they are more anxious even than I am in the matter. They will say how desirable a goal it is to reach, but they will ask, "Is it practicable?" I am prepared to admit at once that no one has a right to come to this House and ask for approval of impracticable schemes. If I thought that the scheme I am outlining was not practicable I should not be here supporting it—never. But let us see. For years past the Labour party has gone into this question with great care, and protracted investigation of every issue involved has been undertaken. The result is that as a party we are convinced that not only is such a scheme desirable, but it is practicable. What are the essentials of a practicable scheme? First, it must provide a pension of sufficient size to induce the elderly worker to retire. Otherwise we fail in our object.
Here I would make a reference to the Prime Minister. He seems to have read the document to which I am referring, but not with the care that he ought to have shown. I have been very disappointed in the Prime Minister, because of two speeches in which he referred to this document, one at Scarborough and the other at Edinburgh. I know that the right


hon. Gentleman was addressing his followers and that he had to cheer them up; that is the trouble with the leader of any party at any party conference. I know also that the right hon. Gentleman is a very stern Conservative and a very keen one, who holds his views with great tenacity. But I have always given him credit for being a very fair-minded debater, and I have always thought that he would fight in an honourable and straightforward manner. He failed us at Scarborough and Edinburgh. He resorted to abuse in place of argument and used rhetoric in place of reason on both occasions. He mentioned the picture on the cover of the document. That picture does indicate some joy in a family, but there is not an artist on this earth who could paint the real joy of any family if this scheme were in operation. I think we might have changed the picture.
I have received lots of correspondence on this subject. To-day I received a postcard which I think might have been used as our frontispiece. It shows three old men, all over 65, going through Lochgelly, in Scotland, carrying sandwich boards, and on the sandwich boards are the words "We want bigger pensions." That might have made a better picture as a frontispiece to the document I have mentioned. Does the Prime Minister think that it is the best way to get bigger pensions that sandwichmen should carry boards through the towns? The Prime Minister says that it is cruel for any party to mislead the electors. I agree. It is cruel for any party to promise a scheme which is impracticable, but it is just as cruel for any party to withhold an improvement which is possible. For the Prime Minister to charge the Labour party with being ambiguous, vague, uncertain and misleading, is to me most refreshing. I have not known the party opposite to be anything but ambiguous and vague when dealing with this subject. I predict here and now that in the Prime Minister's next election manifesto he will mention pensions, but in a vague and ambiguous way. The manifesto will probably state: "We think something ought to be done. We are not sure how far the resources of the State will allow it to be done." We shall get that vague reference.
It is not for the Prime Minister to take exception to a clear document. A clearer document was never issued by any

political party in the world's history. We have not withheld anything from the country. We have emphasised all the disadvantages and the burden. The first thing to be considered was the pensionable age. I do not want any hon. Member to say that we advocate pensions at 60. We believe that a man who has worked until he is 60 is entitled to a pension, but as a result of the prolonged investigations I have mentioned we decided on the age of 65. This document states clearly and definitely that the Labour party after prolonged consideration has decided for 65 years of age. The reasons are given in the document to which I am referring. We considered whether the pension should be given at 60 years of age, but we rejected that proposition as being impracticable,, because we believed we could not get the money that would be required. Therefore, the pensionable age was fixed at 65 years. The next thing that had to be considered was the man's wife. At what age should she be entitled to a pension? Was a wife of any age, no matter how young, to get a pension when the husband became 65? We considered that that would not be reasonable. We decided that the wife must be 55 years of age or over in order to qualify for a pension when her husband qualified at 60 years of age.
After fixing the pensionable ages, we asked ourselves whether, in order to get a practicable scheme, it should be on a contributory basis. There was a time when the Labour party believed that all pensions ought to be on a non-contributory basis. We felt that all the time the workers are contributing by their work in various industries towards the payment of pensions to everybody. Nevertheless, after considering the question, we felt definitely that the scheme must be on a contributory basis. It would not have been practicable to suggest otherwise. The Prime Minister has said that we have not suggested how much the State would have to pay. Surely, the Prime Minister knows that it is difficult to say that now. If to-day we were having the Second Reading Debate on a Bill, knowing what the condition of the country is to-day, we could say what we thought the country could afford to pay. Surely there is some element of uncertainty as regards the future. In our document, we tell the workers that we


may have to call upon them to pay as much as is. a week in addition to what they are paying now, and we tell the employers that the scheme may be brought forward at such a time in the affairs of the nation that we shall have to ask them to pay Is. a week for each worker, whether male or female. We tell women engaged in industry that We may have to ask them to pay 9d. a week. We say that those figures are maximum figures.
Let me now make the position clear as to benefits. We intend in this scheme that there shall be £1 a week for the man and that where he is married and the wife is 55 years of age or over, there shall be 35s. a week. If a person is unemployed and over 60, and the Unemployment Assistance Board will certify that that man or woman is unlikely to regain unemployment, he or she will be able to get a pension at the same age and in the same conditions. As regards children, widows and orphans, we suggest raising the benefits to 10s. a week for the first child, 7s. 6d. for the second child and 5s. for each subsequent child. According to an estimate based on official figures, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will probably realise, the cost would he £85,000,000. Therefore, the scheme would be on a contributory basis, the maximum contribution that would be asked from workers would be is.
A question which we have to ask ourselves is whether it is reasonable to-day to suggest asking for an additional Is. from the workers. As hon. Members know, I am mainly interested in the mining industry. No industry is more depressed or has been more depressed for many years, than the mining industry. The wages of miners are not very high and certainly are not sufficient; but I know my mining community so well that I am prepared to say here and now that if one took a referendum of the miners of Great Britain and asked them whether, although their wages are low, they would be prepared to pay that contribution of Is. from their wages for this purpose, they would say, "Yes." And if the miners said "Yes"—and I guarantee that they would—who in the world would say "No "? The other workers of the country would agree. As to the employers in the mining industry, I have

been looking at the figures, and I say that the employers in that industry could, on their side, bear the burden. I have done some arithmetic as to the average output and the number of miners employed, and I find that it would not cost 2d. a ton of coal produced if the employers paid the extra is. Who will rise in this House and say that the employers cannot afford that sum. I come now to the State's contribution. Will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stand at that Box later on and declare that the £25,000,000 or so required from the State cannot be found? Will he say that it is not worth trying to find it for so good an object? Will he say that the aged people in this country are not entitled to have an effort made to find it?
Let me say in all fairness that I do not mind any hon. Member trying to prove that this scheme is an impracticable one. If hon. Members can prove that, the Motion ought to be defeated. But there ought to be no attempt to defeat this Motion by such Parliamentary methods as are sometimes used. I see no reason for the House not facing such a scheme. If we cannot afford to carry out the scheme, then let us not do it. I ask hon. Members opposite, who represent the workers just as we do, and who are as interested in their welfare as anyone is —for I have never doubted the sincerity of a man because he is a Conservative—to face this issue: do they believe it is impossible for the State to find the £25,000,000 required to finance this scheme? The workers would pay ungrudgingly; the employers could pay their share in the mining industry, and if in that industry, in every other industry. What we have to ask ourselves is whether it is fair to ask the State to pay its share? Hon. Members on these benches believe that it is.
There is our scheme. We make no claim that it is perfect. We shall find imperfections in it. We say that the work of the aged people in the past demands this scheme, their precarious position at present demands it, and the future of the country demands it. I know it would be difficult to carry it out. No one would suggest that it would be an easy thing to carry through such a scheme; but that is no reason for not doing it. In winding up the Debate in 1908, Lord Asquith, after referring to the difficulties that would


be met in giving old age pensions, used these words:
But are we because of the complexity of the task to sit still, with dumb lips and folded arms, and bewildered brains and palsied energies, while this great procession of poor and necessitous and unbefriended linger out the last days of lives, the strenuous years of which have been given to the service of industry and of the State? We say not, and we ask this House to say not, but to take the first step towards the accomplishment of this great beneficient work.
My appeal to the House this afternoon, an appeal which I hope will not go unheeded, is that, by passing this Motion, it should carry that great beneficient work one step further.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Quibell: It is with great pleasure that I second the Motion so ably and eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald). I support the Motion because I feel that the present pensions scheme is full of glaring anomalies and altogether out of date, and its provisions inadequate to meet the needs of old age. My hon. Friends on these Benches believe that the country can afford the expense of the proposed change; indeed, we believe that the country cannot any longer afford not to make the change which my hon. Friend has suggested. What are the arguments which, presumably, will be used against us? I suppose that principally the argument will be that, owing to the stupendous amount of money that is to be spent particularly on rearmament, this reform, which is likely to cost a considerable amount of money, must, even if it be essential, remain in abeyance until such time as we have passed the period of crisis and extraordinary expenditure.
In answer to that argument, I say that up and down the country, not only at Tory conferences, but at Tory meetings, every speaker boasts of the tremendous increase that there has been in the wealth of the country during the last few years. Their claim is that, as a consequence of their being in power, the country is in a tremendously improved financial position as compared with the position a few years ago. In the Motion we propose that the improved financial condition of the country should be reflected in the lives of the common people. That was the reason the Motion was placed on the Order Paper. On every conceivable occasion we hear

speeches in the House in favour of a certain amount of economy. We suggest that there should be this expenditure under this scheme because we believe that the taxpayers themselves will willingly approve of expenditure which will bring such joy, happiness and security to so many of our deserving fellow citizens. It may further be contended, as indeed my hon. Friend said, that the scheme would not relieve unemployment very much, but this at least may be said for it, that it would give aged industrial workers the opportunity to retire from employment at the age of 65 years, and to end their days in comfort, happiness and relief from the toil of the present industrial system. Moreover, it would secure what in my view is the most important thing, a more just distribution of the wealth of the country.
The man of 65 years of age who has to leave his work—for many workers are automatically dismissed at that age—has little or no purchasing power. He receives a pension of 10s. a week, which in most cases is entirely absorbed by rent and rates, and then he is dependent upon his family or upon the Poor Law, which God forbid! In my division, such people do not like to go to the public assistance officer for relief. They would as soon go to the other side and meet the devil himself as go to almost any relieving officer for relief. In this respect the position is worse than ever it was, for there is not the touch between the guardians and poor people that there was in former days. They are so far removed that one cannot get anything done for these poor people.
Let me tell the House of one case of which I know. It is of an old man, bent and worn, who has worked in the steel industry all his life, in general, until the past few years, for a miserable wage. He came to me and said: "I have only 10s. a week. I am living with my son, but his wife says she can no longer afford to keep me. I don't know what to do. I don't want to go to the workhouse, but there is nothing else to be done, because I know she cannot afford to keep me for 10s. a week." What is to be done with such men. The local authority cannot give work to all of them. The local authority in my district is already employing 62 of these men, most of whom have three days' work a week, because they are already in receipt of 10s. a week pension. In most of these cases the first


consideration was to ensure that these poor men employed by the local authority should be able to pay their rates. In addition to those cases at the Employment Exchange in my own town there are 12 men over 65 who are signing on at the present time. They have automatically been given their cards and their lives have become tragedies. That is in the industry which I have already mentioned, and I cannot help thinking that many hon. Members opposite would hold a different view on this subject if they knew these people personally as we do, and realise what they are suffering. They include some of the finest working-men in the country, and they deserve a better fate than that of having to go cap in hand to the relieving officer to beg for some addition to the miserable pensions which they receive at present.
I had in my own division recently an example of the possibility of a scheme of this character being put into operation. It will, no doubt, be urged in this Debate that the present time is not opportune for such a scheme. The terms of the Amendment on the Paper indicate the line of argument that will be followed. The Amendment is a survival from the Middle Ages. It has always been the Tory party's "get out" when any reform is proposed, to say that "the time is not opportune." It has never been opportune, and it never will be opportune. Hon. Members opposite are still living in that inopportune world of theirs, and they will tell us on this occasion once more that the time is not opportune. But let me give this example from my own division. The United Steel Companies have taken a ballot of the whole of their employés on this question—and to justify what was said by my hon. Friend, who moved this Motion, I should mention that the ballot also included several collieries in the Yorkshire area. The ballot was on the question of whether the workers were in favour of a contributory pension scheme or not. Those earning less than 50s. a week agreed to a stoppage of 1s. a week from their wages, and the employés earning over 50s. a week agreed to a stoppage of 1s. 6d. per week from their wages for a pensions scheme. That, I think, is one of the most astonishing things that has ever happened in industry. The total number of employés concerned is about 26,000, and 94 per cent. voted

in favour of the stoppages which I have mentioned, thus proving that the one thing which working men and women look for after middle age is security against the time when, under present industrial conditions, they know that their labour will not longer be required.
We all know that this is an age of machine production. We know the ease with which wealth is being produced. Man is the victim of the system. On the one side, we see an ascending sequence of the increasing power of the machine, and, on the other side, a descending sequence of increasing servitude and helplessness on the part of the workers. Probably the two hon. Members whose names are attached to this Amendment come into contact with poverty in some of its forms, but I think they would probably think differently if they were in constant and close contact with industrial workers who are prepared to make sacrifices of the kind I have mentioned for the sake of security in old age. The workers of the younger generation in the case which I have mentioned, are prepared to begin their contributions at 21, and to pay those contributions until they reach the age of 65. At 65 they would get a maximum of 22s. 6d.
If these private employers can afford it—and they are indeed anxious that their employés should have the security—then I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite and their party should be content to remain camp-followers in regard to this reform. I cannot understand why the party opposite does not avail itself of the sentiment and emotion of these people as expressed in the sacrifices which the younger workers are prepared to make in order to do something for the older workers. Under the scheme which I have mentioned a man who reached the age of 65 on the very day that the scheme came into operation, received his 10s. a week pension. That was made possible by the sacrifices of the general body. Their sacrifices made the scheme a good one. My hon. Friend the Mover has admitted that in existing circumstances it might not be possible to get a scheme of this kind through without making it contributory. We need not make any apology for that, because he who produces all, pays all, whether he is taxpayer or rate-payer, and whatever schemes we provide, all must come out of the wealth of this country produced by


the hands and brains of the working masses. Far better that workers should contribute for something that will give security to them and their wives and families than that they should go on as they are doing in existing circumstances.
Now we come to the scheme which we have put forward, and which, as my hon. Friend the Mover rightly pointed out, the Prime Minister affected to treat with a sort of contempt at Scarborough. He said that it had never even been thought out by the party who put it forward. It is difficult to foretell the budgetry conditions which will obtain when this party gets into power, as I hope it will soon, and it is difficult to give an exact actuarial forecast as to any such schemes, but I think it is safe to say that the burden on the Exchequer would not amount to more than £25,000,000 or £26,000,000. I have made a rough calculation the result of which, I think, agrees with the figures arrived at independently by my hon. Friend the Mover. Would such a reform as we have proposed not be worth that amount of money? The Prime Minister looking at the picture on the cover of our pamphlet said that under the Labour party's scheme every one in that picture would get a pension, and said he was not certain that even the teddy bear would not be included. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman is so materialistic that he grudges that poor family pictured on the pamphlet, the possession of a teddy bear. I can only say that in my view there is nearly as much soul in that teddy bear as there is in the Prime Minister. If anyone ever impressed me with an exterior behind which there appears to be no soul, it is the present Prime Minister. I judge that somewhere beneath that stern exterior, if you understood him better, you might perhaps be able to get at the real man.
I sincerely hope that the House will carry this Motion. I know what it would mean to the homes of the people. It would enable those who have reached old age to retire from what it described in this pamphlet as gainful employment, to make room for the younger generation who ought to be doing the hard and useful work of this world. It would give these people in the evening of their lives, a competence which would keep them in decency and comfort, and prevent them from having to go to the Poor Law in order to augment their scanty pensions.

I would like to quote some lines from the writings of a great man, one of the greatest men, in my opinion, that we ever had in England. I refer to William Morris, whose poems for many years have influenced me and helped me in my work, as I have no doubt they have been an inspiration and a help to many another man and woman who may at times have felt depressed by the hopelessness of the task of achieving progress and reform, a higher civilisation and a more contented people. William Morris wrote:
Then, for why and for what are we waiting?
While our brothers droop and die,
And on every side of the heavens
A wasted life goes by.
These poor people after 65 feel that life has no more use for them. Many times an old person has said to me "The sooner I am gone the better." To resume my quotation:
How long shall they reproach us
Where, crowd on crowd, they dwell,
Poor ghosts of the wicked city,
The gold-crushed hungry hell.
They are gone and there is none can undo it
Nor save our souls from the curse.
But many a million cometh
And shall they be better or worse?

4.43 p.m.

Captain Harold Balfour: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House recognises the great value of the existing pensions schemes, and welcomes the recent inclusion of black-coated workers on a voluntary basis, but, while in favour of a further extension as and when practicable on a sound financial basis, is of opinion that in present circumstances a scheme on a scale sufficient to encourage and facilitate the retirement of the remaining elderly workers from industry would, in addition to placing a heavy direct burden both on industry and on those employed in industry, involve such additional demands upon the National Exchequer as would jeopardise that financial stability upon which must rest not only the wellbeing of industry and employment but also all the existing social services.
I am sure it is the wish of hon. Members in all parts of the House that I should pay a tribute to the sincerity and eloquence of the hon. Member who moved this Motion in a speech which impressed me as a Parliamentary performance if not by its facts. I also desire to congratulate the hon. Member who seconded the Motion. They both asked hon. Members on this side to face realities and this


afternoon I shall endeavour to do so. The first reality I wish to face is a criticism of the speeches we have just heard. They seem to me to appeal rather more to the heart, than to practical considerations such as the House must have before it in dealing with such a vast scheme. The Mover made part of my speech for me. He told me what I was going to say and even what the next Tory election programme would be, but it is fortunate that the most successful political party of the past and also of the future, should not have to rely upon the guidance in tactics of the hon. Member. The Amendment admits frankly the desirability of the principle of the extension of pensions. At the same time, it pays a tribute to the existing pensions scheme which is not, as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) pointed out, the province of any one party. Indeed he paid a tribute to Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's work in that direction. But, of course, that tribute to all parties for contributing to the pensions scheme in this country was immediately contradicted by the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, who said that the Tory party had never done anything in this direction.
Before embarking on the more controversial aspects of this question, I think it would be well to review the part in our national life which insurance is increasingly playing. Insurances to-day cover approximately 18,000,000 workers out of an approximate industrial population of some 30,000,000, and in respect in particular to pension insurance, I see that the State contribution of 1913–14 was £12,000,000 and that it has risen in 1937–38 to an estimate of £61,000,000. If we are paying tributes, I think that is a tribute to the strength of the capitalist system, which, in spite of the War and of the losses of capital and in spite of the retrogressions which it has suffered, has still been able to advance steadily the contributions which industry is able to pay towards the social welfare of our country.
It seems to me that insurance is something more than deferred pay. In the modern State, irrespective of whether you have a Left Government or a Right Government, insurance is the means of conversion of the skill of labour into currency of the realm for provision in old age or distress. That is, I believe, a definition of the purpose of insurance in a modern

industrial State. Some hon. Members and some people outside have currency in the bank and others in the skill of their hands, and I believe that each is complementary to the other and each entirely necessary to the other, but insurance puts them on a common basis in the time of their retirement. Therefore the provision of insurance is a vital and growing question in the social progress of this country, but it must depend on the proceeds of industry, whether it be capitalist or Socialist industry. We can only find the proceeds necessary by taxation, for raising revenue for social services, from the wherewithal of a healthy and prosperous industry. Therefore any scheme, whether contributory or wholly State paid, depends for its success and its soundness on the calculation of what burdens, and in any matter of extension of what extra burdens, if any, industry can bear, and here, I believe, is the first great weakness in the Labour party's proposals.
The Labour party have prepared a scheme and then said that the State, the employers and the employés must pay for it, which is, in fact, saying that industry must be responsible for the cost. I think that is putting the cart before the horse. We take our stand rather on saying that we must first look at industry's capacity to pay and then frame a scheme within the boundaries of that capacity. Thus, I think, the horse and cart will be in the more conventional order. There is a limit to industry's capacity to pay, and I do not believe that any hon. Member above the Gangway would challenge that statement. We all remember, in the time when they were in office, that on this very question of pensions and on other questions the House of Commons was told that reforms could not be introduced owing to industry's inability to carry the additional burden. Therefore, we must ask ourselves in this House in relation to the Labour party's proposals, Has the limit been reached of what industry can bear? The Mover of the Motion asked, "Where do we stand as regards existing anomalies?" I would reply that there are so many existing anomalies in the proposals put forward by the Labour party, anomalies which would cost a great deal of money to put right, that it ill befits him to ask me where I stand as regards minor anomalies, which I would be very glad to see


removed when the revenue can afford it.
There is the word "immediate" used in the Motion before the House. Does that word mean the commencement of the fund immediately, in order that it shall be built up for distribution at some future time, or does it mean the immediate distribution of benefits under the scheme put forward? If it is the former, it means that there is a long time ahead before this immediate scheme can have any benefits for those whom it is supposed to benefit. If, on the other hand, it means its immediate introduction in respect of benefits, where, in the financial proposals put forward here, is the provision for the capital reserve which will be necessary for several years at the start of the scheme if benefits according to the scheme are to be distributed to what one might call actuarially unsound subjects? That is a reasonable question to ask, and I hope that when the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) replies, he will give me an answer as to the way in which this word "immediate" is meant to apply.
I was surprised that not a word was said by either the Mover or Seconder of the Motion with regard to withdrawing men from industry at 60 who are to be certified by the Unemployment Assistance Board as not likely to gain employment in the future.

Mr. G. Macdonald: Men who arc unemployed.

Captain Balfour: Yes. Could one long maintain that preference of treatment for a man certified as not likely to get work over a man not certified who has not got work? That again is a reasonable question to ask. Moreover, if this treatment is to be given to the unemployed after 60, how can it be withheld from men who are unemployed and sick, or partially sick, because sickness has often some contributory cause towards a man being out of employment? Take the case of women in the scheme. There is a number of loose ends in the proposal. The hon. Member for Ince quoted the case of the widow whose pension was discontinued under the present scheme, but take the case of a woman between 55 and 65 who is a wife of an insured old age pensioner. If she became a widow, her pension would be reduced from 15s. to 10s. under this scheme until

she was 65. Then the wife, aged 55, of an uninsured old age pensioner, if she became a widow, would lose her pension altogether until she became 70, unless she herself was insured. The Labour party may say they would grant a pension of 15s. for the widow, but if that is so, it would be difficult to maintain the ordinary widow's pension of 10s., and that would have to be scaled up. If wives and widows are each getting 15s., we know the pressure there is for spinsters' pensions, and so, I suppose, we should have to come to them also.
There are so many anomalies in this particular scheme that not only will they cause grievous electoral discontent to any party that introduces them in their present form, but the cost of putting right the anomalies would put out all the financial provisions on which the Labour party take their stand at present. With regard to the alleged attraction of taking men out of industry, the actual figures of pensioners over 65, both contributory and, over 70, non-contributory, are 2,500,000 men and women. I believe the hon. Member for Ince has stated that the number to be withdrawn from industry will be 250,000, but the figures which I have got of pensioners in industry are approximately 340,000 men and women.

Mr. Dalton: Over 65?

Captain Balfour: Yes, but I submit that it is unfair to say, in presenting your case, that those people will all be taken out of industry and that in their place others will be put into industry. It is really a case of taking a particular figure of a number of people in industry over a particular age and then, if you are logical, not drawing any deduction as b advantage or disadvantage of this particular scheme to any extent at all. What it really means is practically doubling all the non-contributory pensions and lowering the age to 60, by the time you have wiped away all the anomalies which will pile up if you try to introduce the scheme at the present time. Other hon. Members, I believe, will draw attention to other anomalies, but I have drawn attention to a few, and I hope we shall have some information as to how they are to be removed and what the cost of removing them will be according to the Labour party. I estimate that the cost of the whole scheme will be far greater than


the cost which is put forward in the Labour party's pamphlet.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was attacked by both the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion for some criticism which he made of the picture on the cover of that pamphlet, and the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) said that the Prime Minister even begrudged the Teddy Bear in the picture, but the point really is that it is not a fair representation of a political programme to put forward the programme in inside sheets and then, outside, to make the most lovely picture which the Labour party has ever issued, but which has no connection with the subject. if Interruption.]All parties may have done it, but the Labour party should not come here in a white sheet and say, "We are innocent." I have calculated out this beautiful family. I went to some owners of shops who have a knowledge of photography, and I found that the lady's silk dress in the picture could be bought for £4; I understand, on reliable authority, that the children's shoes could be bought at Daniel Neal's for 30s.; the gentleman's suit would, I am told, cost £3 or £4 and the children's clothes approximately £2 each; while the much discussed Teddy Bear, Messrs. Hamley reliably inform me, would cost 25s. The point that I am trying to make is that the total value of the clothes depicted on that cover is about £20. It is a bourgeois family that the Labour party are using for their political propaganda, and I cannot see any reason why the Prime Minister or any hon. Member here should not criticise misrepresentation of this sort. The Labour party has put forward a pamphlet which says one thing but gives a picture of an entirely different class of person, whom the pension will hardly affect at all, and, in fact, who are wearing clothes costing approximately six months of the pension that the family would be paid.
To revert to the question of how much we can afford, the Labour party put forward these proposals in an unco-ordinated manner. I do not believe we can take them without taking into consideration all other proposals for social reform at the present time, such as holidays with pay, higher insurance benefits, and lower age limits. All these are desirable, but not one of them can be dealt with in an

isolated manner without thinking of the total effect in relation to industry. The latest return of expenditure on social services shows that in 1934–5 the amount distributed in this country was £488,000,000, or £10 17s. per head of the population, as against £1 10s. 9d. in 1910. That is again a tribute to the strength of the capitalist system in difficult times. It is worth noting that, in spite of the Exchequer burden of debt and rearmament, which we shall have to face as factors in slowing down social progress, the Exchequer contribution to social services has risen by £48,000,000 since 1931, when the figure was £171,000,000. Although the burden of debt and of rearmament must have a slowing-up effect, no one can say that the social services have not been held stationary but have been extended.
The Labour party's scheme would add about £80,000,000 to the present bill of £90,000,000 for pensions. The State pays £60,000,000 now, but that will automatically jump to£80,000,000 by 1948, so that if the Labour party's scheme were in operation then the additional burden for pensions would be £45,000,000. The Labour party scheme puts another £30,000,000 directly on industry as compared to its present burden of £12,500,000. This must affect the cost of production and our ability to compete in overseas markets with other countries that have not the social standards of this country. It is a little contradictory that the Labour party should say that it really does not matter what burdens you put on industry because industry can afford it, while in the next breath they tell us that we are to have a big industrial slump. We should warn ourselves against too rapid an expansion of social schemes and be careful that we do not cross over the dividing line where you encourage schemes to help those who are out of work at such a cost that it will affect the ability of those who are in work to maintain their work and increase their wage standards. It is an equation which must be considered in relation to the burdens of industry and its capacity.
I want to come to the second weakness of the proposals of the Labour party. That is the persuasion to men to retire at 65 while still active, and then flattening them all out on to the same level of £1 a week. The proposal to put


men out of work at 65 ignores the industrial status of men in relation to their past wage level and employment. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion gave us the instance of 94 per cent. of the workers in the United Steel Company in his division voting for a retirement scheme. He did not tell us whether that scheme reflected in the pension the wage status of the men in the years of their employment.

Mr. Quibell: No, it does not. All who join the scheme at 21 years of age receive a pension at 65 of 22s. 6d.

Captain Balfour: The hon. Member says that that scheme does not reflect a man's industrial scale and status in his past work, but all will agree, that great industrial concerns are launching schemes which do reflect the technical status of the men; and I believe any scheme which induces a man to retire while he still feels he has ability and energy will have to reflect his industrial status and wage levels. The very fact of the introduction of this big State scheme would put a stop to the schemes which big industrial combines are launching on their own. Industry will not be able to afford the two schemes running parallel. One will have to go.
I believe that the line of policy for the future for a scheme for earlier and greater pensions should be one which industry can afford, but it should be investigated from the point of view of seeing whether we can draft it on to those schemes which are being brought forward by the great combines, or, alternatively, whether the schemes of the combines should be taken over and become State schemes, but reflecting, to some degree, the industrial status of the men, which is vital if we arc to get men voluntarily to retire while they still have ability and energy. Before any extension of pensions such as the Labour party propose is brought forward, it should be gone into by some commission set up to review the whole question of the unco-ordinated insurances in our national life. We have so many forms of insurance, and it is now proposed to build on something more to the existing schemes. Has not the time come to review the whole question and to see whether we cannot co-ordinate all our insurances, possibly, at some time or other, under a Ministry of Insurance.
Because of the inadequacy of the consideration of the whole question as put forward in the two speeches we have heard to-day, and in the literature of the Labour party; because they ignore the ability of industry to bear the additional burdens, saying that the burden must be created and that industry must then bear it, rather than investigating what industry can bear and then only putting that much on its back; because of the inequalities and flaws of the scheme which were not touched on by the hon. Members, and which will need clearing up if the scheme is to gain support, I beg to move the Amendment.

5.10 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like to congratulate the two hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion. They have rightly told us that we shall agree with the principle, for we are just as keen —I will not go any further than that—as they are that there should be some security for old people. We have some right on this occasion to claim that our ideas and suggestions should not be just brushed aside as the suggestions of people who always want to put things off. The suggestion has been made on the other side that hon. Members on this side would get up and say that it is a good thing we cannot do it now, but on this occasion hon. Members opposite are not those who can use that argument. It will be within the recollection of many Members that we on this side were taunted in February, 1934, for being people who merely wanted to put off and would not support a good scheme. In that month a Motion was moved in a sincere speech by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), who proposed that pensions should be given at 60. He said on a contributory basis but his hon. Friends wanted no contributions. There were speeches on this side of the House as sincere opposing it. I voted against the Motion.
The interesting point to-day is that the book "Labour's Pension Plan," issued by the National Council of Labour, shows that the people who have gained the appreciation and admiration of the National Council are not those who voted for the Motion in 1934 but the people who voted against it. I am told in this book that the scheme against which I then voted would be a very bad scheme for the country and the sort that the country


does not want. In this book on Labour's pension plan there is first a discussion of the cost of the scheme. I thought at first that this part of the booklet must have been written by the Secretary of State for War, because he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in 1934 and the figures in the book are those that he gave at that time. After giving the information the book says:
It is therefore clear that in the present conditions of wealth production and distribution the cost of pensions of £1 a week at 60 is impossibly high. Moreover, these pensions would not be an effective contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem for under a scheme such as the above it would cost more than £450 annually for each man re-employed.
So that the National Council of Labour is now in favour of those who opposed this scheme. For once we are right on this side of the House, and hon. Members opposite are wrong. I come to the point brought out by the Mover of the Motion, whether the scheme is desirable and practicable. What is wanted according to the Motion is to facilitate and encourage people coming out of industry. I have for some time been studying the Labour party's pension policy, but as there are several contradictions it is in parts difficult to follow. They give us the various schemes. I presume, however, that the main proposal is that those who wish to retire at 65 get £1 and those who wish to go on in work get 10s. I have looked through this book over and over again but I cannot find whether the 10s. is to be retained by those who continue in industry. A doubt has been raised in my mind, because it is stated in this book that if a man or woman were to draw the 10s. and continue working it would have the effect of bringing down wages. Having read that, when I turned to the last page of the scheme I began to wonder whether men or women would be permitted to draw the 10s. and to stay in industry, because one of the benefits of the proposal as there set forth as that
It will no longer be possible to use pensions to reduce wages.
But it will be possible to do it if people are allowed to take their 10s. and to keep at work, because I gather they are not to be forced to come out of industry and accept the £1 but can keep in industry and take the 10s. if they like. I come next to the point whether the scheme will encourage people over 65, who to-day are

working in industry, to come out of industry, or whether they, or even a majority of them, will prefer in present circumstances to stay at work.

Mr. David Grenfell: Does the hon. Lady question the utility of all pension schemes?

Miss Horsbrugh: I will come to that later. What we are dealing with now is whether the present scheme will, in the words of the Motion, "facilitate and encourage people to come out of industry." I can find no definite statistics, but I think there are 60,000 women and 280,000 men over 65 who are drawing pensions and who are working, and I have tried to find out whether the majority of them would find it better to come out of industry. I have to speak without statistics, but I have come to the conclusion that at the present time the majority of those people would prefer to have the 10s. and to stay in industry —that is, the ones who are now actually working. One of the reasons which have led me to that conclusion is that there are now working in industry older men who are very skilled men and are commanding high wages on account of the armaments programme. In a great many cases at present skilled men who would perhaps not otherwise be at work are in highly paid jobs teaching or overseeing the more unskilled men who have been out of work but have now found employment.

Mr. Quibell: Does; hon. Lady know that in the case 'of the United Steel concern all men, skilled or unskilled, have to give up work on attaining the age of 65?

Miss Horsbrugh: I agree that a lot of working people are compelled to leave their employment at a certain age, but the Motion deals with those who have not been compelled to leave their employment, and the question, is whether it would facilitate and encourage them to give up work. I think that many who are at present working would still stay in industry. I have come across a good many women who are getting their 10s. and are continuing at work. Since September I have tried, wherever it has been possible, to find out from women who were continuing in work what they would prefer to do. I am willing to grant that some will come out of employment, but I think there are a good many cases in which they


will not be persuaded to leave industry if they can have 10s. and their wages as against £1 or 35s. for man and wife and no wages.

Mr. Grenfell: There will be no pension then. The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways.

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Member will allow me to make my speech, I think I shall be able to put forward my arguments. I have been dealing first with whether this scheme would facilitate and encourage people to come out of industry, and I shall deal next with whether the facts put down in this book and the finance of the scheme relate to the actual facts of the case. But allowing that such a scheme could be carried through, I am still doubtful whether the offer proposed is a good enough one to "facilitate and encourage people to come out of industry," and that point ought to be considered. The offer is 10s. if you remain in industry, and £1 if you come out.

Mr. George Griffiths: It is 35s. for a man and wife, that is, an additional 15s; and I know of 60,000 men working in the pits who would come out to-morrow.

Miss Horsbrugh: I had mentioned the 35s., but at the moment I was talking of the case of a single woman. I said that I had been considering the case of women, and although in this book the talk of spinsters' pensions is put away quickly with the observation that "among other reasons the cost would be prohibitive," we still have a right to consider the case of the single woman, and whether she would come out or stay in. I am coming now to consider whether, from the point of view of cost, this is a scheme such as the National Council of Labour suggests would he a good scheme. They say that the right type of scheme must be based on planned economy, be on a basis of sound ordered finance and strictly limited to what it is practicable to do, having regard to the Budget. They also say:
The scheme must be so arranged that it avoids having to make any cuts in other social services and makes it possible to have a properly-balanced Budget.
There we are all in full agreement. I have come to the conclusion that since the scheme which was put forward earlier was withdrawn, there is a greater mea sure of agreement between us. It is nice to notice how much nearer we have all come

together. We agree that there must be a contributory scheme, that the scheme must avoid making any cuts in the social services and be based on sound finance and a balancing of the Budget, and we agree that there must be a means test at the age of 70. The only thing on which we do not agree with hon. Members opposite is that the scheme which they now put forward fulfils all those conditions. I agree that we want a scheme, and also that a lot of work has been put into the present scheme, but I would say to hon. Members opposite, "Go back and work out a better scheme." We turned down the scheme in 1934, and they brought forward a much better one; and if we reject this scheme perhaps, next time, we may have a scheme to which we can all agree.
Next I should like to deal with the anomalies. I have heard it said that we should get away from the anomaly of the man drawing the pension at 65 while his wife, because she was younger, cannot get it. I found it suggested in the book that the woman should get the pension at the same time as the man
except in the comparatively few cases where a young woman has married a man of pensionable age or approaching pensionable age.
I ask hon. Members whether they do not agree that that sounds a great deal more attractive than the plain fact that no woman will get the pension unless she is 55. We have come down from the young woman who marries the man of pensionable age, to the reducing age from 65 to 55 when a wife gets a pension. It has been suggested that the cost of making that change would be from £9,500,000 to £10,000,000, but that figure cannot be given very definitely. We know that there are 140,000 women between 60 and 65, but we do not know how many there are between 55 and 60. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether he could tell us what would be the cost of allowing the wife to have the 10s. pension at the same time as her husband if her age was not less than 60. I presume that the cost would be nearer £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 if the pension were given at the age of 60 and for this concession many are most anxious.
We have been told that no scheme will be any use unless it is financially sound and strictly within the limits of


the Budget, and with that consideration in mind I should like to calculate the total cost of the Labour party's scheme. The cost of giving a pension of £1 instead of 10s. has been put down at a figure of £65,000,000, rising to an annual average of £75,000,000 The sum of £1,000,000 has been put down in order to give the pension to pre-Act widows between the age when the last child leaves school and they attain the age of 55, and £2,000,000 has been put down for giving extra pensions for the children. We find it stated that the voluntary pensions scheme is appreciated and that the extra pension and child's allowance is to come into the scheme. I would like to know how much that is to cost. It is stated in the book that it has been impossible to estimate the cost, but perhaps by this time some estimate has been made. Under the voluntary scheme as at present they say that the cost to the State will rise £2,700,000 per year. Perhaps we should put another £2,500,000, if we double the pensions and allowances to the children. That brings us to £80,000,000.
There is something much more difficult to calculate in the scheme—the cost of giving pensions to unemployed people who are certified as practically Unemployable and not likely to get work again. There may be a very great number of them. In all probability it would be very difficult to distinguish between all those who have been transferred to the Unemployment Assistance Board, from other unemployed, but the Board have to certify them. It might mean all those who were unemployed at the age of 60. It would mean a pension of 35s. a week for a man and his wife, and that would amount to a very considerable sum. I looked to see what I had to add to the amount, which is already up to £80,000,000 for the year. I found:
It is impossible, in the absence of adequate statistics as to the age distribution and chances of re-employment of such persons, to make an accurate estimate of the cost of this proposal.
That is one of the main features of the proposal and one which will cost a considerable amount of money, yet we have got up to £80,000,000 before we reach it. The anomalies will also cost a good deal of money. We shall be anxious to know from hon. Gentlemen what is to happen to the wife of between 55 and 65 who

is getting a pension of 15s. if she has to go back to 10s. as a widow. What about the people who are 60 and unemployed and are sick, drawing National Health Insurance benefit. Will they and their wives get the chance of a pension? That is a big gap in the total cost, when you come to make up the amount for those people.
It has been suggested that we need not bother very much about that aspect of the matter, because there would be a saving to the State, by reason of unemployment allowances not being paid through the Board. When we had the last Debate we were told that we must clearly take into account some kind of saving. This matter is mentioned in the foreword to the pamphlet. I do not think the foreword can have been written by the same person who wrote any of the other part, because it states:
There will be considerable savings on poor relief to local authorities, of unemployment pay to the Unemployment Fund, and of unemployment assistance to the Unemployment Assistance Board, the whole of which is a State charge.

Mr. Grenfell: Hear, hear.

Miss Horsbrugh: Apparently the hon. Member agrees with the gentleman who wrote the foreword. Perhaps he wrote it. We find quite a different story on page 24, where it says:
Certain 'savings' would, of course, be effected in other branches of State expenditure by the introduction of some such scheme…"—
that is to do with the people of 60—
but these savings have been grossly exaggerated in amount…The great part of the savings on unemployment expenditure… would accrue to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. No Government could touch this to recover the savings, and there would, there-fore, be no savings at all to the Budget. Similarly, the savings on poor relief would accrue to the local authorities, who would certainly resist the recovery of the savings, and would desire the money for their own purposes. There would, therefore, be no savings to the Budget beyond a relatively small amount saved on unemployment assistance.
The gentleman who said in the foreword that there would be considerable savings evidently had not seen what his friend had written there. Therefore, we cannot alter my figure of £80,000,000 plus what is to be spent on those at 60 and plus the anomalies concerning widows.
We are not altogether finished with the anomalies. There is the widow, over 55,


of the uninsured man. Is she to lose the pension of 15s. until she is 70, and then get it back? I was looking at the treatment of the spinsters to start with, so now I turned to the widows. There is the widow of the unemployed man of 60 who was given a pension at 60 of £1 and 15s. for wife because he was unemployed. Is his widow to go back to 10s.?

Mr. W. A. Robinson: She gets nothing now.

Miss Horsbrugh: Is she to go back to the 10s. which she has at present or retain the 15s. which she gets because she has married a man with a pension at 60? There is a large collection of anomalies. There are the present widows and the pre-Act widows. It would help us to know whether the scheme is, as is said, sound from a financial point of -view and would not interfere with the other social services. We ought to be told exactly what the arrangements would be. If these widows are to get the extra pension, what would it cost and what would be the full cost of the scheme? I should like to know the suggested estimate of the cost of the pension for people at 60.
We all realise the difficulties of financing this scheme. This booklet reiterates over and over again that it would be wrong to give people hopes of a scheme which turned out to be financially unsound and therefore they did not get their money. The contributions of workers, employers and the State would go up. The miners' case has been mentioned to-day, but naturally I think first of the state of the industry with which I have most to deal, the jute trade, and the difficulties which may occur there under the trade board. There has been a small rise in wages which worked out at about is. 6d. a week because the trade board thought the industry could afford it. I want to be quite sure about such poorer industries. Will the people who have had their rise of is. 6d. a week have to pay is. per week extra under this scheme, and if those industries have to pay an extra amount, will there be a consequent reduction in the wages paid by those industries, under the trade board?
I fear that here is a scheme which is financially unsound. We should be careful not to give people hopes which would be dashed It would be disastrous if the

scheme ever came into force, because the workers would pay from the age of 16 and probably before the time came for them to benefit not only would there be bankruptcy in the fund, but there would be bankruptcy in the country. I base that statement on what is contained in the booklet. [An HON. MEMBER: "The old story."] Yes, we have heard the old story from hon. Members opposite to-day. We have had the same arguments that were used on a different scheme in 1934. We turned down the scheme of 1934 because it was financially unsound and would ruin the people of this country, as has now been agreed in this publication. We are having the same arguments again. to-day. It does not seem to matter to, hon. Members whether it is financially sound or not, but the pamphlet makes it clear that it would be disastrous to put up a scheme that was not financially sound.

Mr. Holdsworth: Is there anything more unsound than giving money in subsidies where very often it is quite unnecessary? We are giving money away every week in this House. Why is it more unsound to give such subsidies than to give the pensions which are now proposed?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I cannot allow the hon. Member to make a speech.

Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Member has asked about the giving of subsidies; I consider that is far more sound. [Interruption.]I hope hon. Members will allow me to continue, if they want to know my reasons. I believe subsidies have kept in employment many thousands of people who otherwise would be out of work. I believe the present scheme is not sound and that it will be turned down as was the 1934 scheme. Can we put nothing in its place? I believe we can. I want a new scheme, and that is why I am seconding the Amendment. I hope that hon. Members agree with practically everything that is in the Amendment. They agree as to the benefits of a pension scheme and in welcoming a voluntary scheme. They will also agree that any scheme should be financially sound if it is to help employment and the social services of the country. If we are agreed so far, I would ask hon. Members to go further and consider whether it is possible to devise another scheme, something; better and more financially sound, and helpful.
I believe the difficulty about this scheme is that hon. Members are trying to graft upon the present system a new sort of insurance that the system cannot bear. I think they will agree that when the old age pension was introduced as an amount of 5s. it was not thought necessary that the pension should be a subsistence wage. It was introduced to give the old people something of their own, some little help. Presumably at that time it was thought that they would also be helped by their relations or by the only other help then available for them, what we now call public assistance. We have gone more and more away from the idea of such people being helped by public assistance. It is regarded by many as shameful.
What hon. Members are now trying to do is to graft on to the present system the idea of a subsistence wage for these people. I am entirely in favour of the idea of a subsistence wage, but I do not believe that you can graft it on to the present system. We have to face something much bigger if we are to get a scheme of a retirement wage and not merely a small additional pension. I believe that sooner or later we shall have to face an all-in pension-and-insurance scheme, with in-for-all benefits and all people in. I believe the present proposal is merely tinkering and trying to make an already overladen system bear a further burden which it cannot sustain. I would agree to a scheme to give a retirement pension, but it cannot be brought in on this basis.
In asking for support for the Amendment we appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House. We all agree with a contributory scheme now, and the inclusion of a needs test at 70. If a retirement pension is to be provided which will be a subsistence wage, we agree that we must have a scheme financially sound if it is to he accepted. Instead of pushing this Motion and the Labour party's scheme, hon. Members should realise that the scheme is not financially sound any more than their scheme in 1934 was, and they should join with us in supporting the Amendment, and asking the Government people on all sides of the House and the best brains in Britain to-day, to bend their minds to producing a scheme of all-in pensions that will provide, not merely

an additional sum, but a living and subsistence wage. It is because I want to see a better scheme and more encouragement given to the workers to retire, that I second the Amendment.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Mander: In view of the very admirable though somewhat extended remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken, I intend to compress mine into the shortest possible space. I rise in order to give whole-hearted support to the Motion which is before the House. The scheme it outlines, while no doubt capable of improvement in its details, seems to me to be an admirable one. It may not be practicable all at once, but it is the sort of objective which we all have in mind and towards which we should strive to work. Certainly, a figure of £1 a week is not excessive for a pension. One feature which I think will be as popular as any other is that the wife should have a pension when the husband has attained the age of 65, and personally I do not think the scheme would be complete or satisfactory unless something were done for the spinsters, who at the present time are active in organising their point of view and have a reasonable and practicable programme.
It is said that the finance is more than the country can afford, but it always seems to me that, if you want a thing keenly enough, there is always money available for it. We want armaments at the present time; we find them necessary; and there is not the slightest difficulty in providing the money. The suggestion has already been made that, if some of the unnecessary subsidies were cut down, we could find the money for this scheme there; and I would suggest also that if we adopted a different foreign policy it would be possible to find large sums of money for social reform. I support the Motion because it seems to me to bring in an essential element in human freedom. Any individual who feels that he is approaching the period when he hears:
Time's winged chariot hurrying near
is naturally anxious as to the future, and wonders how the last few years of his life are going to be spent. He is not a free man, he does not enjoy full liberty, unless he is secure and knows that he is going to live those years in peace without any trouble or anxiety as regards his


household. I also support the Resolution because I believe that at the present time far too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, and far too little distributed among the many. I believe that the existence of a scheme of pensions financed by contributions and by taxation is a very wise and statesmanlike method of at any rate going some way towards spreading the wealth of the country more generally throughout the whole population. Moreover, it will do something towards solving the unemployment problem. I want to say a word of sympathy with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) and by the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) with regard to trying to further and encourage private schemes in industry, because I feel that we may not succeed in carrying out all at once, or as soon as we should desire, the whole of the proposals that are before the House, and that anything which can be done in the meantime or in addition is wholly to the advantage of those employed in the industries concerned.
Perhaps I might be allowed to give one example that came under my personal notice, because it illustrates another question. We have a joint works committee —I happen to be introducing a Bill on that subject to-morrow—and some 10 or more years ago the workers' side, for it is wholly representative, said that the thing they would like more than anything else, if it could be devised, was a scheme for pensions of 35s. a week at the age of 65. I do not think that they or anyone else thought it was likely to take place; it seemed somewhat above the realm of practicability; but we went very carefully into the whole scheme, and I am glad to say that for a considerable number of years that scheme has been in operation. The workers pay a contribution of is. a week, and, of course, they are very glad to do so. I feel that that is an example of the willingness there would be to contribute towards a scheme of this kind.

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Member says that under that scheme the workers pay 1s. a week. May I ask what is the payment made by the employers?

Mr. Mander: The actual contribution by the firm is between 5s. and 6s, a week.

Everyone, of whatever age, was brought in at once, so the contribution was very heavy. When the State pensions for husband and wife are taken into consideration, in many cases this would bring the total up to 55s. a week. It is not really too bad. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the firm is not bankrupt !"] We are very well satisfied from every point of view. I merely mention that by the way, as a personal contribution to this question. I am supporting the Motion because I want to get those people who are in trouble and difficulty out of their difficulties as quickly as possible, and I believe that if we pass this Resolution and start the scheme in operation we shall be achieving that end.

5.54 p.m.

Captain Cobb: I feel that I am rather at a disadvantage this afternoon, because I seem to be one of the few Members of the House who have not had the advantage of studying the Labour party's pamphlet which has been so much discussed during the Debate. It has been very well advertised, and I shall try to remedy my deficiency and discover where it is on sale.
A great deal of difference of opinion has been expressed as to whether these elderly workers at the age of 65 would or would not prefer to retire at that age. It seems to me that, if it is considered desirable that they should retire in order to make room for younger workers, the proposed pension should have some sort of relation to what they are actually receiving while they are in active work. I suggest that the inducement to retire will have to be something pretty considerable if it is to have the effect which the party opposite wish. It is, however, my firm belief that there is a very large number of people who have no wish to retire whatever the inducement may be. One meets them in all walks of life. They do not want to feel that they are too old to take an active part in industry, and I do not believe that, even if the inducement were the equivalent of their wages, they could be persuaded to retire so long as they were physically capable of doing the job to which they have been accustomed. We have evidence of that fact at the present time. The return of the Ministry of Labour a few weeks ago showed unmistakably that there is a growing


number of men over 65 remaining in industry, as a result of the very greatly increased activity that there has been in the last two or three years. I think that that condition of affairs will always exist as long as there are jobs for these people in the industries in which they have been accustomed to work.
I gather that the Labour party's proposals would include a pension for the wife as well. I understood, from what the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) said, that the wife would become entitled to a pension of 15s. a week provided that she had reached the age of 55 or more. It seems to me that, if you are going to grant a pension of 15s. a week to a married woman of 55 or over whose husband is 65, you cannot leave out the spinster. The House is very well aware that there is a growing movement in the country for the granting of pensions to spinsters at the age of 55. I am not expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of that claim, but it seems to me that, if the party opposite are proposing to grant pensions to married women at the age of 55, they will have to open their arms a little wider and embrace the spinsters as well.
It is, of course, understood that in this pension scheme the State would play its part, as it does now, and this would represent an addition to our expenditure on social insurance. As has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour), the present expenditure for this year amounts to £61,000,000, and it is anticipated that within a comparatively few years it will rise to £80,000,000. I am not making any complaint about the amount which the country finds in order to provide old age and widows' pensions, but one has to realise that this charge for pensions is being met for the most part by the younger section of the community—those who are in active work and who are producing the bulk of the country's income. As everybody knows, the expectation of life is daily growing longer; people are living to a greater age than they did; and I do not think that, after last Monday's Debate, the House needs to be reminded that the birth rate is going down. The result is that the balance of population is shifting gradually over towards the

older people, so that, if any addition is made to the Bill which is now being paid by the country on account of social insurance, it is going to put a heavier burden on the younger section of the community which is gradually declining in numbers.
I am inclined to wonder whether it is desirable in fact that men should be encouraged to retire at 65, so long as they are able to follow their normal occupation. One knows that there are many parts of the country and many industries in which there is a shortage of labour now. I was talking a few days ago to a large employer of labour in a cotton mill, and he told me that it is almost impossible nowadays, with the increased activities in cotton mills, to find the necessary number of suitable people to fill the vacancies they have. If you encourage older people to retire, that shortage of labour will increase, and it is a mistaken idea to imagine that their places would be taken by the unemployed people in other parts of the country and in other trades. I am not suggesting that the present old age pensions are sufficient to keep people; but I do not think they were ever intended to do so. They were intended, as the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) has said, as something that people could always rely on.
It can be assumed, since something like 9 or 10 per cent. of old age pensioners are supplementing their pensions from public assistance, that the majority have some sort of resources to enable them to supplement their pensions. One is encouraged in this view by the figures relating to the Post Office Savings Bank. One finds that these deposits have risen between 1931 and 1936 from £290,000,000 to £432,000,000. The great bulk of these savings are those of people drawing weekly wages, and, in my judgment, what would make better provision for comfort in old age would be a continuation of the process now going on everywhere in this country, the tendency to make considerable increases in wage rates.
Very much increased wages are being paid in many industries to-day—a tendency which I hope will continue until the gap between rich and poor becomes smaller than it is now. I believe very largely in individualism. I think that


every individual should have the opportunity, within reasonable limits, of working out his own salvation, and that the present old age pensions scheme does provide a reasonable foundation, which will enable each individual to build upon it according to the way which he thinks is the best and most appropriate to meet his needs.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Lathan: The speech to which we have just listened is an indication of how far from the realities, to which the Mover of the Amendment called us, some Members actually are. The speaker who has just finished indicated his belief that a considerable proportion of the money invested in the Post Office Savings Bank belonged to working people or to those who come within the category we are considering to-day. Nothing could be more remote from the fact. I wonder what sort of constituency the hon. Member represents, if he not heard of the terrible distress which numbers of old age pensioners are suffering to-day.

Captain Cobb: I represent an industrial constituency in Lancashire, which during the slump experienced great hardship. I am quite aware of the fact that there is hardship endured by a certain number of those people. My contention is that the great majority have savings.

Mr. Lathan: The hon. Member would find abundance of evidence, if he made inquiries, to support our contention that large numbers of old age pensioners are dependent on public assistance or the meagre resources of their family to make ends meet, in the barest sense of the term. I have in my hand one of a number of letters which I am constantly receiving from old age pensioners in my constituency—which is also an industrial constituency and is supposed to be sharing in the prosperity resulting from the rearmaments boom. The letter is written by a woman who, I am sure, would not, except under considerable stress, approach a Member of Parliament. She speaks as one who, with her husband, lived in four reigns, and she indicates the kind of difficulties they are confronted with now. I will not go into the whole letter; I will only say that, after taking everything into account, the old age pension and also all they receive from the public assistance committee, she and her husband are left

at the end of the week with 13s. to maintain the pair of them and to buy all the necessities of life. She says:
How is it that old people are never mentioned in the House of Commons.
She has not heard the questions we are always asking in the House of Commons from this side; and it would, I am sure, disturb her and dispose of any illusions she has if she heard the replies we receive from the other side of the House. She goes on to say:
Please ask Mr. Chamberlain that question. He has had a mother, and if he was like my husband, in low water, I am sure it would make him bitter.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet, in submitting the Amendment, said that his speech had been anticipated. That is perfectly true. It was anticipated nearly 30 years ago. I, like other Members, have been refreshing myself, snore or less, by reading the Debates which took place in 1908, when the meagre provision of round about 2s. or 3s. a week—because pensions were scaled down; there was a means test—was introduced. The hon. Lady the Member for Dundee can rest assured that there was nothing in what she said of an original character. Ingenious as her observations were, they were anticipated, in varying degree, by those who at that time occupied this side of the House.

Miss Horsbrugh: Were the same speeches not made in 1924, and the same rebukes given to us on a different Bill by hon. Members who are now on that side of the House?

Mr. Lathan: The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not pursue her down the path along which she is trying to lead me. Remember that the meagre proposals of those days amounted to a charge on the Exchequer which was estimated not to exceed £7,500,000. Notwithstanding that, we had the same cry that the country would be ruined, that friendly societies would be broken up, that all thrift would be destroyed and that it would encourage the wasteful; and the pensions were scaled down, as low in some cases as 2s. or 3s. a week. One Noble Lord said that they all desired to alleviate, as far as possible, the lot of the deserving poor. Believing, as I have no doubt he did, that there were no deserving poor, he proceeded to vote against the proposal before the House.


Hon. Members on the other side may have difficulty in understanding the scheme put forward by the Labour party, although it is a little difficult for me to understand how any person of average intelligence—I want to be quite fair in the language I am using—could fail to understand it if he read it.
The Prime Minister was good enough to mention me specially in his speech at Edinburgh, assuming incorrectly that I, as treasurer of the Labour party, was wholly responsible for the scheme. I have a share in the responsibility, and I gladly admit it. While some comfort may derive to Members opposite because of their views on our scheme, there is comfort to us in the fact that there is responsible opinion of a non-Labour character which does support our view. The "Times "—not the "Daily Herald "—on 11th September, in its editorial column, delivered itself thus:
The report on pensions includes a financial survey which bore the marks of a careful and objective preparation. The Labour movement has thus started a system of scientific inquiry into the policies that make up its electoral programme. It may in some instances require courage to accept the results. Certainly it did in the case of pensions.
It was further stated:
Theory surrendered to the plain force of facts,
and the General Council
is intent on keeping its feet on solid ground.
I do not claim that that involves complete acceptance or approval of our scheme, but neither do I think it would be fair to say that it is merely an expression of emotional feeling on the part of the leader-writer. It is, in fact, an expression of opinion by one who understands the question. Because it is a considered opinion, we are content to accept a judgment of that character, and believe, as all the circumstances warrant us in believing, that the scheme as propounded, and which to-day has not been disturbed substantially, is a scheme which is founded on fact, and founded upon proposals that are practical in character.
May I draw the attention of those who are offering criticism to the clear statement within the scheme itself, printed on pages which I can indicate, if desired? The figures which are used in the scheme

have been compiled and given either by the Ministry of Health or by other Departments concerned, or have been obtained in answer to questions which have been raised in this House. In every case we are prepared to do what has never yet been done by the party represented by Members opposite, namely, to substantiate them and to give information as to the sources from which our figures are derived, and to accept any fair unbiased opinion in regard to their soundness or otherwise.
Questions have been raised as to the possibility—and the Prime Minister again comes in here—of trade and industry in this country bearing the strain. The strain, in so far as the proposal which for the moment is under examination is concerned, would mean a charge upon industry of approximately £25,000,000 or £26,000,000, certainly not more. The Prime Minister took the figure, derived, I believe, from Conservative speakers' notes, which are not always the most reliable guide in matters of this sort. It was a figure of £27,500,000. I am prepared, for the purpose of discussion and if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wishes, to accept that figure and to consider it in relation to another statement which was made by the Prime Minister in this House in different circumstances only a very short time ago.
When in connection with the National Defence Contribution he was assailed with the "ruination of industry" contention by his own supporters, not quite so mildly as they have been assailing us to-day, he took the liberty to remind them that it really could not be as bad as that. He said, or words to this effect, that industry is providing profits of from between £600,000,000 and £700,000,000 per annum. We ask for less than 5 per cent. of these profits for the men and women who help to make these profits. The Prime Minister has done what none of his followers has dared to do to-day. In spite of what they may say here they have to keep their eye on the electoral position. He spoke of the proposal being in the nature of "a glittering promise." I take leave to give an entirely different interpretation. I regard it as a long overdue debt which is awaiting discharge. These poor people, endeavouring to make ends meet, with rising prices, which the Government are doing practically nothing to prevent, are faced with contingencies which it is really


too cruel almost to contemplate. They have been subjected all their working lives to limitation and shortage, and here at the end of their days—and everybody can speak nice words about them now—they are being subjected to still further limitation and privation, and are being compelled to go to the public assistance committees, or alternatively, to seek the aid of their already struggling families.
I believe that this proposal is of a character that the finances of the State are well able to bear, and I believe, moreover, that the great masses of the employed portion of the country would be only too willing, if they were given the opportunity, to subscribe to a scheme of that sort. I believe, as one who for 35 years has been intimately associated with the administration of large superannuation funds, in respect of which I could stand examination by the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) out of actual experience and not theory, that it would be possible to meet the situation without affecting their position. It would possibly improve or stabilise their position by absorbing them and bringing them into our big scheme, or, alternatively, it would be possible to do what has already been done in respect of tens of thousands of employed people in this country, namely, to provide exemption from the national scheme, through being certified as already being members of an approved and satisfactory scheme. Because I do not think for a single moment that the finances of the country cannot fully bear this strain, I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the Motion.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: The House has been impressed, as indeed it always is, by the speech which has just fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan). But he has no right to regard the Conservative party as the inflexible defenders of archaic privileges who allow occasional concessions to be forced from their reluctant fingers. Successive Governments have in this country built up an immense and incomparable structure of social services. His own party since the eighteenth century has been in office for a total of three years and a quarter which were not conspicuous for any remarkable legislative successes. It is the senior parties in this country who are mainly responsible, and are indeed the main architects of our social

welfare to-day. I shall try to emulate the example of conciseness set by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander), although it is true that there is no clock which I can see. But I trust that the absence of any visible clock will not lessen that brevity for which I am resolute. I expect to be down again in my place in six or seven minutes from the present.
The Amendment that we are discussing to-day states that those who support it are
in favour of a further extension as and when practicable on a sound financial basis
That does not mean, I hope—I trust profoundly that it does not—jam yesterday, jam to-morrow but never jam to-day. That would be too exact an application of the gentle gradualism which since the Debate on the Address is now and for ever to be associated with the constituency of the Isle of Thanet—Half a mile in 700 years! "Let us not," says my hon. and gallant Friend with that admirable caution which so well becomes him," have a too rapid expansion of social schemes." But there is, as it happens, a class of persons who might be assisted, and assisted now by the extension of State benefit. They are at present insured but unpensioned—namely, the spinsters above the age of 55 but under the age of 65. I suggest to the Government that it would be equitable, decent and desirable to assist that group of persons to-day, since something could be done for them—as I hope to show in a moment—without any serious financial strain on the Exchequer. There are at the present time—and I think that it is a number we can regard as more or less stable—170,000 such insured spinsters. To pension them at 55 instead of at 65 as at present would mean an annual charge of £4,500,000.
May I have the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, because he informed me on a recent occasion that the cost of pensioning these ladies between the age of 55 and 65—these spinsters who are at present insured—would be £13,000,000. I cannot understand why my right hon. and gallant Friend made that statement, but the Financial Secretary
moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform.
That figure, I suggest, could only be reached by him or by his advisers if they


include married women. But the married woman has not the same claim to a pension as the spinster at the age of 55: a married woman, obviously, has the advantage of a home and a husband, and also the contingent pension rights which accrue from her husband's insurance. Nor, as far as I am aware, is there at the present moment any large body of married women who are claiming pensions at the age of 55. They do not, in fact, often remain in industry, as spinsters have to, until this particular milestone in middle life has been reached and passed. The only class who can make with the spinsters a comparable claim are the insured and unpensioned widows. And clearly they have not the same actuarial claim as have the insured spinsters. In any case, if they were included in the scheme which I would like to see set in motion, they would not seriously increase the annual cost above £4,500,000. It is interesting to observe that a total of £42,000,000 is annually disbursed to all classes under the national contributory pensions scheme.
These facts, of which I will remind the House with the greatest possible respect, show the very small proportion of public money which is at present allotted to the insured spinsters. Men and wives pensioned at 65 receive approximately £17,000,000 per annum; widows under the Contributory Act of 1925 receive £14,000,000, and widows under the noncontributory 1929 Act approximately £9,000,000; whereas the spinsters who are pensioned at 65 only are at present in annual receipt of £2,000,000. The total number of widows in receipt of pension under the two Acts which I have just specified, reaches the relatively very high figure of 700,000. Whereas the number of spinsters in receipt of pensions from the age of 65 and onwards is no higher than 80,000. That means that there are to-day 170,000 insured spinsters over 55 and under 65 who are compelled, as it were, to drag out their declining years in loneliness and in unrelieved toil. I have made every kind of representation in favour of this limited class of persons, and it would not be a very expensive reform—£4,500,000 a year. I ventured to make a speech of substantial length —anyhow, far longer than I am going to speak to-night—on the Second Reading of the black-coated workers Insur-

ance Bill. I have also submitted to the Minister questions and sent letters to the Government on this matter. Therefore, I am not going to prolong my observations to-night except to say that this comparatively small section of the community is now beyond question suffering economic hardship as well as a quite peculiar state of loneliness which, I suppose, most of us in this House cannot imagine because we can never experience it. Their lot is easily remediable by legislation and fully controllable by Parliament. So I beg His Majesty's Government to take a step which is both suggested by generosity and demanded by decency.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments as there are only three points that I want to make. The first is that when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman replies for the Government, even if he cannot accept the Motion, I hope that he will not put himself in the position of holding out no hope for any improvement at all. No one has suggested in this Debate that the present rate of pension is adequate. We all know that where pensioners are living alone, or where a pensioner and his wife are both drawing the old age pension, the public assistance committee in every case has to step in when there are no other resources. In my own constituency in every case the public assistance committee has to step in, where there are no other resources, and pay an additional 5s. If the time is not held to be propitious for doing anything else, I should think that it would be quite feasible to increase the amount by 4s. or 5s. in cases where there are no other resources, and to relieve these people—they are only 10 per cent. of the old age pensioners—from what is to many of them the humiliation of having to apply for public assistance week by week. That might involve a transfer of financial burdens from the rates to the taxes, but it would not involve any increased charge on public funds as a whole.
My second point is this: What is the difference between the Motion and the Amendment? We have had a great deal of discussion to-day about the pension plans put forward by the party above the Gangway. It is perfectly legitimate that they should use this opportunity to


air that plan, but we are not asked by the Motion to approve that plan or any of its details. All that we are asked to do by the Motion is to say that immediate measures should be taken to establish a scheme of pensions. Hon. Members above the Gangway do not even say that such a scheme of pensions should come into operation immediately. They do not say that the pensions should be immediately payable. They say that immediate steps should be taken to establish such a scheme. That is an important point. Assuming that, sooner or later, we are going to have a scheme, and assuming that it is going to be a contributory scheme, there is everything to be said on actuarial grounds for starting now, because to years hence, and still more 20 years hence, we shall be called upon to bear an enormously increased burden for old age dependence. It is estimated that in 1946 there will he 1, 000,000 more people over 65 than there were in 1936. It has been estimated that the percentage of persons over 65 will be twice as high in 1966 as it was in 1931. That is to say, the longer we wait the more difficult it will become to initiate a contributory scheme, because the higher the proportion we have to budget for the smaller will be the proportion of younger people to help to carry the burden. Therefore, if the Government contemplate at any time within the next 10 or 15 years initiating a scheme of contributory pensions, it would be reasonable for them to start building up their fund as soon as possible, so that those who will be later coming on to the fund will be making some contribution towards their own pension.
My third point is this: A good deal of attention has been devoted to this question by all parties, and in particular by an organisation known as the Liberal National party. At their last annual conference in Peebles the Scottish Liberal National Association passed a resolution in favour, among other things, of an increase of old age pensions, and the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has been going round the County of Fife for weeks making speeches to old age pensioners in favour of higher pensions. He and his colleagues have got a good deal of publicity by action of this kind. There are five hon. Members entitled to speak in this House for the Scottish Liberal National Association, and

it ought to be put on record that not a single one of those five—the Minister of Labour, the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Lieut.-Colonel Kerr), the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald), the hon. Member for East Fife, and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes)—has even taken the trouble to attend this Debate or to listen to anything that has been said.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have only five minutes in which to speak, because I understand that the Financial Secretary desires to rise at 20 minutes to seven. I believe in keeping promises and I shall not occupy more than five minutes. Before coming to this House I spent 25 years in several workshops. A large amount of that time was spent in one of the largest factories in the country. As a result of that experience I know the men and women of this country fairly well, and I have sufficient confidence in them to believe that when an issue is put to them in a straightforward way, without any bias by the Press or without any bias by other interested parties, they will come down in support of our policy and principles. A few days ago I made a suggestion to the Prime Minister that he should consult with the British Broadcasting Corporation as to whether the proceedings of this House might be broadcast. As I sat here this afternoon listening to the speeches of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour), and the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), I wished that the people of the country could have heard those speeches broadcast, in which case I should have been prepared to leave the issue to them, because I have sufficient confidence in them to say without hesitation that they would have come down on our side.
I am concerned with the immediate needs of old men and old women. I do not speak of them as "these people" or as being in a different category from myself. I am one of their category. I am concerned with the anomalies mentioned in the Motion. Is any hon. or right hon. Member prepared to say that 10s. a week is sufficient for an old age pension? In the Army, the Navy and the Air Force men are pensioned after 10 or 20 years' service, whereas the


people to whom we belong, who have made this country great and have been responsible for the building up of the country, are only entitled to 10s. a week old age pension, after serving 50 or 60 years in industry.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet jibed at this party by suggesting that it must have cost £20 in order to find clothes for the men and women on the photograph at the back of our pamphlet. My reply is this. I occasionally read the Sunday "Observer," not very often, because it is a Fascist periodical, and I also read the Sunday "Times." Sunday after Sunday I find advertised in the Sunday "Times" and the "Observer" fur coats to be sold in London for £500 and £750. The same people who purchase those fur coats buy diamonds, pearls and plumes, which are advertised in the same newspapers. The people who are responsible for supporting the policy outlined in those newspapers are the same people who are opposing our Motion to-day; the same people who deny a decent pension to men and women after serving industry for 50 years and upwards.
If there is one committee that will be pleased with the result of this Debate it is the Labour Publications Department. A great advertisement has been given to our pensions plan to-day, and I hope that as a result more and more people will read that plan. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) reminds me that we might use the capitalist idea of advertising by saying that everybody is reading our publication now. When the Financial Secretary replies he will probably call attention to another publication of ours with regard to those who have made greater Britain. From now onwards, as a result of Continental experience, we say that the working people of this country have made Britain great, and the only policy that will make our country great is the policy outlined in our plan.

6.42 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The House always considers itself fortunate when the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) is selected, by ballot or other methods of selection, to put a case before us. He does it in a way that always

commands our respect. The speech of the hon. Member and the speech of the Seconder of the Motion, and also the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) and the hon. Lady the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) have all been on such a high level that the Front Bench representatives will have to make notable contributions to equal those speeches from a Parliamentary point of view.
I shall not be able in the time at my disposal to answer all the questions that have been put, for I should like to analyse the scheme which hon. Members opposite have put forward; but I must follow the hon. Member for Ince in one or two points. He gave a historical review of the attitude of the Conservative party in the matter of pensions, but he stopped his review too early. He stopped before 1919, when a Government which had a very large Conservative backing increased the pension to 10s. That may be represented as a Measure partly due to the cost of living, which had risen considerably at that time, but when we come to 1925, a date which the hon. Member apparently did not recollect, a very great Measure of social reform, the Contributory Pensions Act, was passed by a purely Conservative Government, led by Mr. Baldwin, as he was then. The Socialist party have yet to contribute to the Statute Book an Act of social reform equal to the Contributory Pensions Act which was passed by a purely Conservative Government.
The hon. Member's main theme was his party's new pension plan, and he asked me questions in regard to what he described as anomalies. These points were also raised by other hon. Members. The first point was as to the cost of giving pensions to pensioners' wives who are under 65 years of age. The cost of granting pensions to the wives of contributory pensioners with no lower limit of age where the wife has not attained the age of 65 would be £6,500,000 in a year, rising to £8,000,000 in 10 years' time. If the concession were restricted to wives of 60 years or over, the cost would be £3,750,000 in a year, rising to £4,750,000 in 10 years. I am sorry that I cannot without notice give the comparable figure with regard to a lower limit of 55 years of age. But we cannot consider these cases in isolation. Consequential


extensions must also be considered. The hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) have again urged the case of the spinsters. The case of wives cannot be dealt with without also considering the case of spinsters. Contrary views are held on the subject. Some people consider that spinsters have the stronger case, but at the present moment I am not dealing with that aspect of the matter. As Financial Secretary to the Treasury I am concentrating on the cost. If you take all the items together the cost might be £13,000,000 now, and £16,000,000 10 years hence.

Mr. Lees-Smith: What are we paying now?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Taking the cost without a lower limit of age it would be £6,500,000 a year for the wives, and then you have to consider the consequential extensions. Taking as well the scheme for spinsters and widows who are in insurable employment and wives who are in insurable employment, the cost might be as much as £13,000,000.

Mr. Dalton: These figures are very interesting to us. The Financial Secretary is taking the case without a lower limit and he is, therefore, taking the case of a young wife of 21 who is married to a man who is just about to get the pension. On the other hand, he has now put in consequential spinsters also without a lower limit of age.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: No, I beg pardon. The figure included for spinsters was at the age of 55. I am sure hon. Members will not expect me to announce a reversal of the decision which has already been communicated to the House that in present circumstances this expenditure cannot be undertaken. The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) indulged in a flight of oratory and referring to the speech of the Prime Minister said that the exterior of the Prime Minister had no more soul than the teddy bear appearing on the outside of the pamphlet. We can forgive the hon. Member his flight of oratory, but when he makes such a reference in connection with a man who has such a record in Parliamentary and municipal life as the Prime Minister, a record which will compare with any other man's record in the sphere of social improvement, then, I think, he was not the best selection hon. Members opposite could

have made as a seconder for the Amendment.

Mr. Quibell: I, also, have had 30 years in municipal life, but I have not had so much advertisement as the right hon. Gentleman.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I think the record of my right hon. Friend can be left confidently to Parliament and to the country. What I want to do is to dispel any idea that this country is not already making a great contribution towards pensions. The cost of pensions, old age and widows' pensions, has been steadily growing. To-day it is £92,000,000, and of that total the Exchequer contribution is £63,000,000. The comparable figure for 1930, a year when hon. Members opposite were in office, was £72,000,000. Therefore, it shows considerable growth, and it ill becomes hon. Members opposite who were doing less in the matter of pensions to criticise the Government for what they are doing. Before the 1925 Act came into operation the sum was £27,500,000—and that Act was passed by a Conservative Government. Hon. Members will see that there has been a great growth in the expenditure on pensions during the last 12 or 13 years. This will continue to increase as I shall show later.
These pensions are in many cases supplemented by voluntary contributory schemes arranged between employers and employed. These also are increasing; and we desire that they should increase. The Government bless them not only with good words, but also by Income Tax concessions. The contributions of employers and employed, and any investment income of the pension fund are exempt from Income Tax. We deliberately en-courage these schemes. Again, the National Government have filled a real gap in the pensions scheme by the Act which was passed this year, giving a right to make voluntary contributions to persons with small incomes, whether working on their own or not. Since that Act has been in operation many applications have been received. The popularity of the scheme is demonstrated by the fact that over 100,000 applications for inclusion have been received, and the number is increasing.

Mr. Lathan: Am I correct in saying that, apart from the original entrants, the cost will fall on the contributing members?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Had it not been for the State it would not be possible to give them the same benefits as they are being given.

Mr. Latham: But the contributors are paying for them?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I think the hon. Member will see that the State's scheme is much more generous to contributors than the proposals the Labour party are making. The Motion contemplates a retirement of older workers from industry and the hon. Member for Ince believed it would be 250,000.

Mr. G. Macdonald: I said it might result in 250,000 who are now out of work being employed.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, that 250,000 jobs would be found as a result of the retirement. I think the hon. Member is optimistic. There are at present in insurable employment over 65 years of age about 340,000 people altogether, 285,000 men and 60,000 women, and it is rather optimistic to assume that within that number the inducement of £1 is going to make vacancies which will be filled by 250,000 new entrants. That will require a good deal of examination. A doubt has been expressed as to whether such an inducement would lead to anything like that number of cases, and I strongly question whether a figure of anything like 250,000 new jobs would be found as a result of the Labour scheme.
It would clearly be impossible to limit the increase to those who stop work now; obviously it would have to be available for them whenever they stopped. The proposal of hon. Members opposite is really this: the doubling of all pensions subject to the condition that the recipient does not work while he is drawing his pension. Purely from the aspect of facilitating and encouraging retirement, is it really sound policy to give a 100 per cent. increase in pensions to the 2,500,000 pensioners for the purpose of persuading a much smaller number to retire? I am not denying that the increase itself would be welcome. I am not arguing that—I am arguing the point whether to facilitate retirement it is sound policy to give an increase of 100 per cent. all round for the purpose of persuading a small number to retire. Hon. Members opposite have invited me

to analyse their scheme. The hon. Member for Ince said the scheme of pensions at 60 had been dropped. and that we could taunt them if we liked. I do not propose to taunt hon. Members, but we had to meet this policy on every platform during the election. They have changed their views. They have recognised that the scheme is not practical, and I take it, if they recognise that the present scheme is also not practical, they will change their views upon it as well.
Under the teddy bear pamphlet, as explained by a later broadsheet, the additional cost is to be met by increased contributions, the maxima being 2s. for men and 1s. 9d. for women to be shared between employers and employed, but there would be a State contribution of £25,000,000. This raises an important point of principle which has not been touched upon so far. Obviously when benefits under a pensions scheme are increased, there is a heavy initial capital loss, because benefits are extended at once to older contributors who have not paid contributions or many contributions towards the cost of the uncovenanted benefits—and I presume the intention of hon. Members opposite is to extend the benefits at once. For the younger men, the ultimate increased cost is met largely by increased contributions during a longer period. This loss must be borne by someone—and this is the point which has been missed by almost all hon. Members. Hitherto the State contributory schemes have been on the basis that you cannot ask contributors to pay for more than they actually receive. In other words, we make an actuarial calculation and charge contributors contributions appropriate to the benefits they stand to gain. An example of this was the 1925 scheme. This basis—and I think it is the only fair one—means that the initial loss to which I have referred is borne by the State.
The Labour plan is very different. They propose an arbitrary increased contribution designed, together with an Exchequer subvention, to bring in the amount necessary to meet the increased cost of their plan, and in no way mathematically linked with the benefits which the contributor himself stands to gain. This means that the capital loss, or a large part of it, is being borne not by the State, but by present and future contributors. What it would mean if the scheme was accepted is that young men would be taxed for the


rest of their lives to pay for present benefits to older men. This scheme of the Labour party is fundamentally unsound in this direction and differs entirely from previous schemes, because it is going to tax younger men throughout their contributing lives for benefits given to older men now. The Treasury is sometimes regarded as being skinflint, but the Treasury, in examining the finance of this plan, is bound to approach that examination in a different spirit.
I have worked out figures showing what is a fair additional contribution to cover benefits to the contributors under the Labour plan. It is 1s. 1d. for men to be divided between employers and employed, against the Socialist proposal of 2s. and 1s. 9d. On the basis of contributions which I have explained, I will now give the House figures showing the cost of the Labour scheme. Pensions on the existing basis in the present year amount to £92,000,000, of which contributions bring in £29,000,000, and the net cost to the Exchequer is £63,000,000. The new scheme would add immediately £75,000,000, of which the contributions on the basis that I have suggested would bring in £34,000,000. The net additional cost to the Exchequer would be not £25,000,000 but £41,000,000. This has been very carefully worked out in view of this Debate. I am giving figures which have been carefully calculated for the purpose of showing how the scheme would work if worked out on the same basis as previous schemes which are regarded as fair to the contributors. If the new scheme was introduced to-morrow the total cost would be £167,000,000, towards which contributions would be £63,000,000 and the net cost to the Exchequer £104,000,000. But we must think not only of to-day but of the future in any pensions scheme that we set up. The automatic growth of the present scheme is of an extent that is not always realised. Even if we did nothing to increase benefits, the cost is bound to rise steadily owing to altering age groups. In go years' time—I may be asked why I have taken such a long period—it is because to years may be regarded as rather under the average period of a man's contribution. A young man going into insurance now will be drawing his old age pension in about 40 years' time. I have, therefore, taken that as a convenient figure.
In 40 years time existing pensions will cost £147,000,000 if no change is made. Contributions will bring in £34,000,000. So in any case, even supposing that no improvement at any time is made in the pensions scheme, the inevitable net cost to the Exchequer at that time would be £113,000,000. Consider the effect of adding the new scheme. That scheme's present cost of £75,000,000 will rise steadily by about £10,000,000 every decade. In 40 years it will cost £112,000,000, towards which contributions will bring in £31,000,000, leaving £8r,000,000 for the Exchequer. If we consider, as we are bound to consider, the total cost that the State will be meeting by the time present young men are receiving benefit, we find ourselves faced under the Socialist scheme with a growth of the net cost to the Exchequer of these pensions from the present figure of £63,000,000 to no less than £194,000,000—more than treble. The total burden on the workers will be more than double what it is to-day even on the reduced contributions I have referred to. The contributions from employers and employed will bring in £65,000,000 and the total expenditure will be £259,000,000 as against £92,000,000 to-day. These are enormous figures, but they do not include the heavy additional cost of meeting many of the anomalies which would arise. Hon. Members have pointed out that the scheme is full of anomalies. Many of them would have to be met by extra expenditure—spinsters, widows under 65, the chronically unemployed between 60 and 65 and so on. These huge figures take no account of such extra expenditure, which has not been faced up to but which would have to be met.
Furthermore we must consider the whole picture. The Labour plan is said to be balanced with the rest of their programme of reform. Pensions in this year cost a little over a quarter of the money that we spend on the social services. We have other important social services besides pensions. Are they also to be increased proportionately? When this figure of £259,000,000 is borne in mind the phrase that it balances with the rest of the Labour party's programme must also be borne in mind. The pamphlet that has been referred to says that the plan is to be accompanied by increased


provision for invalidity, and that the pension scheme has been balanced with other reforms, including further expenditure on education with maintenance allowances, nutrition, health services, improved conditions for the unemployed, the rehabilitation of the depressed areas and other things. We are getting very near to the figure that the hon. Member for the Park Division (Mr. Lathan) mentioned as the profits of industry, £600,000,000 to £700,000,000. If the Labour party got into power there would be no profit in industry at all. I should be glad if hon. Members will answer this. How do they propose to balance this immense expenditure on pensions with the rest of their re-forms? Mention has been made of pamphlets and broadsheets. I do not think that any one party is guiltless in the matter of trying to produce attractive pamphlets to interest the electors, but when I read this other pamphlet and its promises I find only one thing lacking, that is, the complete absence of any reference to finance except a proposal to nationalise the Bank of England, which would in my opinion have the result of blowing the rest of the programme sky high. We must consider the financial obligations of the country as a whole in viewing the Motion. This year the proposed estimated national expenditure is £862,000,000, not including the £80,000,000 borrowed under the Defence Loans Act. For social services the figure is £215,000,000. That is many millions more than has ever been spent by any previous administration on the social services. It is more than the party opposite spent when they were in office. That covers old age and widows' pensions, housing, health, unemployment insurance and assistance and education. By contrast, in 1925 the same group cost just over £100,000,000. In 1930 the comparable figure was £155,000,000, to which in fairness must be added £36,000,000 of borrowed money for the Unemployment Fund during that year.
Turning to the Defence Estimates, this year they are £278,000,000. That is about £90,000,000 more than last year. £80,000,000 comes from the National Defence Loan. Hon. Members may say that if it were not for this expenditure we could spend more on the social services, but they cannot deny that Defence expenditure on this scale is necessary; there-

fore, we have to face up to these facts. The Labour party when in office felt themselves unable to face the charges that they are asking us to face when they had not this heavy defence expenditure to meet. The Amendment faces reality. The Government has given abundant proof of its will to maintain and extend the pension scheme as well as other social services when possible, but that extension and maintenance, if they are to be secure and permanent, must rest on the basis of sound finance, without which the whole structure would crumble, and in the crumbling of that structure it is just those people with small fixed incomes whom the Motion wishes to help who would be most grievously affected. I urge the House to support the Amendment, which is not unsympathetic, but which faces squarely the fundamental issues.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: The short point is, Does the Government, or does it not, propose to do anything to improve the condition of the old people? The answer is short, and it is No. We have had that from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and we had it from the Prime Minister at Scarborough. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he could not announce any reversal of the decision that nothing whatever could be done. We have put up specific proposals. They may be right or wrong, sound or unsound, but they are clear, and a great deal of labour has been spent on them and they were accepted unanimously without a single dissentient vote at the recent Conference of the Labour party. We are to-day almost engaged in a rehearsal of some of the performances of the next General Election. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) and the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh)— she is the rasher of the two, because her majority is more precarious—dashed into the fray in opposition to what has been picturesquely called the "teddy bear plan." They are asked a reasonable question which I will answer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked what we meant by immediate. Did we mean this to be a scheme for immediate application so far as benefits and contributions are concerned? Our answer is that we mean immediately in both senses as soon as the country has given us the opportunity to carry out this scheme. The choice before


the country is this scheme or nothing, and we believe that the country will prefer this scheme to nothing.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave the House some Treasury arguments supplied to him by clever officials, and I have no doubt that if we were sitting on that bench, the same Treasury officials would, on request, supply equally ingenious arguments in support of our case. Civil servants honestly serve their masters of whatever political colour, and they would give us just as good, just as ingenious and just as plausible a brief in support of this scheme as they have given to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Therefore, I dismiss all the Treasury intellectual arguments in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman indulged in the later part of his speech—the argument that if we were to have benefits of this kind there would be a greatly increased charge on the Treasury and various far-fetched arguments of that nature. I dismiss those arguments from consideration this evening, because in the case of the definite scheme which we put before the House and before the country —not a hypothetical scheme prepared cry Treasury officials—the Treasury officials will prepare plans for us when we are 'n office to carry out the scheme.
I would like to say a word or two in reply to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Thank about the capital loss, a point which was also made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Our plan is designed to balance over a Io-year period on a given scheme of contributions and benefit. It is worked out on the basis of the average cost over a 10-year period, a period during which, as all hon. Members know, there will he a very great change, and the aged will become more numerous and the young less numerous. That fact underlies any discussion of these questions. 'We may regret it, but we must make provision for it according to our power. Our estimates are that there will be, over a 10-year period, a complete balance in the fund. In the earlier years there will be a surplus of income over expenditure which will meet any deficiency in the latter part. We deliberately state that we do not consider it is practical politics at this stage to go beyond a 10 years' survey. It might well be that in the course of such a period the situation would become different and adjustments in the plan would

be needed. But we consider that it is not shortsighted to take a 10-year period.
The hon. Lady the Member for Dundee asked some questions about various anomalies. She was deeply concerned by the thought that if the whole of our scheme were carried out, and if we advanced, as it were, to a new frontier, there would be anomalies on that frontier. There will always be anomalies on any frontier. In social reforms one is always able to discover difficult cases, and that will be so until we reach a classless equalitarian society in a Socialist commonwealth. [Interruption.]That will come, whether hon. Members like it or not. Then the anomalies will finally disappear. I am sure that the hon. Lady will admit that there are great anomalies now. The most stark of those anomalies would be removed under our scheme. It might well be that after it had been in operation, new anomalies would appear. If the hon. Lady is still a Member of the House when a Labour Government puts the scheme into operation, I hope she will assist that Government to go further and to remove those anomalies.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am helping hon. Members opposite now by pointing out the anomalies, so that the people of the country will not suffer from them in that scheme.

Mr. Dalton: We are grateful to the hon. Lady. The fact that a few anomalies might exist is no reason for not making substantial progress in the right direction, and the mere fact that one person might be jealous—and might have a good case in equity for a share in some scheme —is no argument against conferring the benefit upon a very much larger number of people. We propose a substantial and clear-cut advance with regard to pensions provisions in a number of specific cases. I am delighted, as a Member of the National Executive of the party, and I am sure my delight is less than that of my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan), who is treasurer of the party, by the splendid publicity which is being given both to the teddy bear pamphlet and the equally attractive document which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman showed to the House during his speech. I hope that the one hon. Member who has spoken and who has not yet furnished himself with copies of these literary gems will take


early steps to do so. We intend that the proposals which my hon. Friend has explained this afternoon shall be kept continuously before the country until the next General Election comes.
I wish now to say a few words as to the cost of this scheme. We have been very careful, first, to make our proposals specific as far as benefits are concerned, and, secondly, to make our estimate of the total cost as accurate as we can. I assure the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee that we have not put in our proposals a single figure which has not been vouched for officially in one way or another. The hon. Lady raised a query about the pension to be given to a married woman of 55 whose husband is 65 years of age. She was not sure whether the figure was accurate, but I think the figures mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on that same subject will have reassured her and led her to see that our estimate is pretty accurate. Indeed, I do not mind stating that our figure on that point is based upon Treasury data, and therefore I think it is reliable. The hon. Lady also raised the question of the cost of transferring from the Unemployment Assistance Board roll to the pensions roll people of 60 years of age and over when one is satisfied that they are unlikely to obtain work. I am not sure that the hon. Lady appreciated the fact that those on the Unemployment Assistance Board roll are paid out of the Treasury now.

Miss Horsbrugh: It is 26s. for a man and wife.

Mr. Dalton: It varies according to the dependants, the family, and so on. Whatever the figure may be, it as ascertainable. Consequently, the additional cost to the fund will be in respect of the increase and not of the total amount.

Miss Horsbrugh: Under the scheme it is 35s. for a man and his wife. The difference is 9s.

Mr. Dalton: The reason the cost is not quite clear is that one cannot be definite without knowing what will be the state of trade and whether anything will be done to rehabilitate the distressed areas. It is not possible to make any estimate of the exact number of people in the 60–65 group who would be transferred, and it would be misleading to include

any fixed figure. There is one other point to which I wish to refer concerning the cost. It is not the case—and this document does not state that it is—that the cost would require both an Exchequer contribution in the neighbourhood of £25,000,000 and contributory payments from the employers and employed of 2s. a week. It would not require both. The figures are clearly set out.
An interesting fact which emerges is that those who drafted this document very wisely refuse to say, in conditions which cannot at the moment be exactly foreseen, precisely how this total should be divided between the Treasury, the employers and the employed. For reasons which are set out in the pamphlet, and which I will not state now, as I have not the time, but which hon. Members who have the pamphlet will be able to read on pages 28 and 29, it would be very mistaken policy, and would in fact be dishonest as well as stupid, for us to attempt to give precise indications as to how that burden would be divided. What we do estimate—and this is a figure by which we are prepared to stand—is that in the extreme case of not a penny coming out of the Budget towards pensions improvements—and this is given only for illustrative purposes because naturally it is contemplated that there will be some contribution from that source—if there were an additional 1s. per employé paid by each employer, 1s. per male employee paid by himself and 9d. per female employee paid by herself, the total revenue would more than cover the £85,000,000 a year which we estimate as the total cost of the scheme. That is the extreme in one direction.
The extreme in the other direction, which we rule out as being quite out of the question, is that the whole £85,000,000 would come from the Budget and that nothing would be contributed by the employer and the employé. In truth, some variant between those two extremes will be the right decision when the moment comes; but in so far as one assumes that there is a contribution from the State of £25,000,000—the figure of £25,000,000 has been thrown out in debate as a pure illustration and does not commit anyone —that will be very nearly equal to one-third of the total cost, and will mean that there will have to be an additional contribution not of 1s., but of only 8d.


or thereabouts, in respect of each employer and employé. The fact that the finance has been worked out in this careful way should, I think, be further evidence to those hon. Members whose minds are open on the subject that this scheme is worthy of very careful consideration.
The benefits to be conferred have already been enumerated, and in the time at my disposal I will say only one final word on the question of the inducement to retire. In so far as hon. Members are right in supposing that the inducements which we offer would be insufficient, correspondingly the cost of the scheme would fall, and it would become, from the financial point of view, more easy to carry out. The inducement which is offered is the difference between 10s. for

a man and 35s. for a man and his wife. That is the degree of difference. The final point I wish to emphasise is that over and above any inducement to retire, important though that is, is the lifting of the standard of life of the aged people of this country from the miserable conditions of poverty and semi-starvation in which great numbers live to-day, and making it possible for them, in the evening of their days, to look back upon a life of toil from an ultimate position of reasonable comfort and contentedness. That we shall continue, until and after the General Election, everywhere to advocate.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 181.

Division No. 35.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Adams. D. (Consett)
Hayday, A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Riley, B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hills, A, (Pontefract)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Banfield, J. W.
Holdsworth, H.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barnes, A. J.
Hopkin, D.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Barr, J.
Jagger, J.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Batey, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sanders, W. S.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Seely, Sir H. M


Benson, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Bevan, A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Short, A.


Bromfield, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Chater, D.
Lathan, G.



Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan D. G.
Stephen, C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Thorne, W.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mander, G. le M.
Walker, J.


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Frankel, D.
Mathers, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Westwood, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Milner, Major J.
White, H. Graham


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Montague, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Naylor, T. E.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Griffiths. G. A. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Oliver, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Owen, Major G.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, Agnes
Parker, J.
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Quibell.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Price, M. P.





NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fleming, E. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Furness, S. N.
Peaks, O.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Porritt, R. W.


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Procter, Major H. A.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gledhill, G.
Radford, E. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portom'h)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bea, Sir A. L.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Robinson, J. F. (Blackpool)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Grimston, R. V.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Blair, Sir R.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Boulton, W. W.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Russell, R. J. (EddisburY)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Salt, E. W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Briscoe, Capt. F. G.
Hambro, A. V.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Harbord, A.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Savery, Sir Servington


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Scott, Lord William


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Butler, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cary, R. A.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Higgs, W. F.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Channon, H.
Hopkinson, A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hume, Sir G. H.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Spens, W. P.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Colman, N. C. D.
Kimball, L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lees-Jones, J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Groper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Liddall, W. S.
Tate, Mavis C.


Crooke, J. S.
Lindsay, K. M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Groom-Johnson, R. P.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cross, R. H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Train, Sir J.


Crossley, A. C.
Locker-Lampoon, Comdr. O. S.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Davidson, Viscountess
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander F. L.


De Chair, S. S.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Turton, R. H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McKie, J. H.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Donner, P. W.
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Warrender, Sir V.


Drewe, C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Marsden, Commander A.
Williams, H. C. (Croydon, S.)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Eastwood, J. F.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Eckersley, P. T.
Moreing, A. C.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry



Elmley, Viscount
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Emmett. C. E. G. C.
Munro, P.
Miss Horsbrugh and Captain H.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Balfour.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."

Several Hon. Members: rose—

It being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

EMPIRE EXHIBITION (SCOTLAND) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.39 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House cannot consent to the Second Reading of a Bill which confirms a Provisional Order setting aside the law governing the sale of exciseable liquors in Scotland and which is contrary to the declared wishes of the inhabitants in the area affected by the Order.


Whatever view we may take of the proposal embodied in this Bill, I am sure it is common ground that Members in all parts of the House wish great success and prosperity to the Exhibition. We are all united in paying tribute to the energy, the enthusiasm, and the public spirit of the promoters of the Exhibition, however much me may disagree with the proposal which they seek to further in this Bill. I am sure also that every hon. Member who shares my views on the question involved, will agree with me that the commission of inquiry, composed of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman), and my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood), and two legislators from another place, did to the best of their judgment and ability give a verdict with good intent and every desire to serve the public interest. But many of us have profound misgivings about this Bill, and it is our duty to state those misgivings in this High Court of Parliament. I hope I shall state mine persuasively and not provocatively, and certainly with no aspersions whatever on the bona fides of anyone who differs from me.
I have one preliminary complaint to make. No copy of the evidence led before the commission has been made available in the Library. The House is called upon to take a decision of considerable importance, overriding a public general Act of Parliament, and yet the evidence for and against that course embodied in the report of the proceedings before the commission which sat in Glasgow, has not been made available to Members of the House. Printed copies cannot even be obtained from the shorthand-writers and printers who acted for the promoters of the Measure. I offered to purchase a copy of that evidence for use in this Debate and I was informed that the shorthand-writers and printers had no copies available for me. I believe that six copies were sent to the Town Office in Edinburgh and that each of the four members of the commission was supplied with a copy. I believe that the promoters have some copies, but no copy has been made available for any Member of this House.
I should say that I am exceedingly obliged to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk for permitting me, as an act of grace, to examine that evidence clandestinely and furtively,

and I hope that those two hon. Members when they speak to-night will join with me in protesting against a procedure in public business which prevents hon. Members who will have to vote in the Lobbies of the House on this question from seeing the evidence upon which the commission came to its decision. The opponents of the Measure could not see a printed copy of the evidence unless they were prepared to share the cost and I believe that the cost is about £300. To go half-and-half in meeting that cost would be a prohibitive charge. It would mean a fine of £150 upon Members on this side of the House before they were permitted to see a printed copy of evidence led before a commission appointed by this House, upon which evidence a decision is to be taken here, involving the overriding of a public general Act. If Parliament is to discuss a proposal to override the general public law, Parliament ought to be in possession of the necessary data, and I hope I shall have the assent of all parties to that statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): Is not that a reflection on the procedure of the House?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir, most emphatically. I cannot put it any plainer. If I have failed to convey to the right hon. Gentleman that I am making a reflection on the procedure of the House, I have been singularly unfortunate in my choice of language. I do not bring the Secretary of State personally into the matter, and I hope he is not taking this as a reflection on himself, but in this particular case I am saying that it is farcical that the House of Commons should be asked to make a decision upon matters in regard to which the evidence is not placed before it, and the least it can ask is that a copy of the evidence in similar circumstances, should they ever arise, shall be placed in the Library of this House. In the first place, this discussion to-night is not a discussion upon total abstinence or upon American or any other form of prohibition. There are already eight restaurant licences granted to the promoters of this Exhibition, and six of these eight have already been handed to one individual. Another application was made for a restaurant licence for the employés of the Exhibition, but was turned down by the magistrates. Nine applications were made in all for restaurant


licences; eight were granted, and six of them have already gone to one gentleman, whom I would call the monopolist in the matter.

Mr. Macquisten: Who got the other two?

Mr. Johnston: The other two, so far as I know, at the moment still remain vested in the Exhibition authorities. To whom they may delegate their functions and powers in the matter, I am not aware. At the beginning of this business—I beg hon. Members for English constituencies to take note of this fact—the temperance party in Scotland did not object to restaurant licences being granted to the Exhibition. With a great display of worldly wisdom in the matter, they decided that they would not oppose restaurant facilities at the Exhibition, but the Exhibition authorities, not satisfied with the provision of restaurant licences, which had been granted, decided to promote a Provisional Order, from which this Bill has followed, whereby public-house licences in addition may be granted within the confines of the Exhibition.
The view taken by the temperance party in Scotland was that, provided the fundamental structure of the Scottish Temperance Act was not destroyed, they were not going to seek to crab the Exhibition in any way by opposing the provision of restaurant licences. But there is a curious advertisement, which appeared in the "Glasgow Herald" on 24th November, which I should like to read to the House. Apparently they are not satisfied with restaurant licences—and six of them already granted to a monopolist—not satisfied that they should come to this House for additional public-house licences; apparently they propose to inaugurate club licences inside the Exhibition. These club licences do not require the consent of the magistrates, but are granted by the sheriff. Here is the advertisement:
Manager-Secretary (temporary) wanted to Exhibition Club, Bellahouston Park, May to October, 1938. Probable membership about 2,000, past experience essential, only written applications will be considered, they must state age, qualifications, and salary required, and be received not later than 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 30th November, 1937.…
That is, before the date upon which this House is called upon to decide whether or not the Bill should be approved—

…together with copies of testimonials addressed to the General Manager, Empire Exhibition, Scotland, 1938, 75, Bothwell Street, Glasgow.
It is said that these licences are necessary for the success of the Exhibition. It is said that the poor cannot purchase a meal, cannot purchase a sandwich, and that, therefore, there must be the provision of excisable liquor apart altogether from the restaurant licences already granted and provided for. The first comment upon that that I have to make is this, that every direct representative on these benches of the organised working classes in Scotland, every one, without exception—total abstainers, non-total abstainers, men who are for prohibition, men who are for municipalisation, men who are for local veto, men who are for all and every kind of change or form in these matters—has signed the opposition on the Order Paper of this House to the Measure now being brought before the High Court of Parliament. If this is to be imposed upon us to-night, it will not be imposed upon us by working-class representatives' votes. It will be imposed upon us by gentlemen who themselves will not go to these bars, who will not have their sons or daughters go to these bars. It will be imposed upon us by people who are not directly and openly, at any rate—I desire to raise no question of provocative party feeling—representative of the organised working-class parties in Scotland. This district where the Exhibition is to be held is what is called a dry district; that is to say, on three occasions the local electors, under the provisions of the Scottish Temperance Act, have decided, by very large and growing majorities, to have no public-house licences in their area. This area includes the Bellahouston Park, which is the most suitable place in which the Exhibition can be held, and these electors now find themselves in this position, that whereas in 1920 they had a 1,300 majority to have no public-house bars, no public-house licences, in their area, in 1923 the majority was 1,175 for the same purpose, and in 1926 the majority was 1,780. They therefore have exercised their statutory rights under an Act of Parliament and have done so on three occasions. In this bar-less area the Exhibition is to be held. The Exhibition authorities, as I have already said, have got their eight restaurant licences now. Then they


went to the Corporation of Glasgow, the City Council, to ask whether they, as the owners of the Bellahouston Park, would offer any objection to the promotion of this Bill, which may provide, if the magistrates agree, additional public-house licences, and by a majority of, I think, 50 to 36, or 56 to 36—I am not sure of the precise figures—the Corporation of Glasgow, not on a roll-call vote, decided not to spend public money in objecting. They decided to take no action in the matter. Then the Provisional Order was promoted, and now we have this Bill, after the Provisional Order has been examined by two hon. Members of this House and two Peers from another place, who decided that the Preamble of the Order had been proved and that the Bill should be supported.
I have four principal objections to this Measure. In the first place, it is an invasion of the statutory rights of citizens under the Act, even if the invasion be for a temporary period of six months only. We are told that local citizens must surrender these rights to wider national interests. Well, the onus of proof as to whether these wider national interests are the interests of Scotland rests with those who make the assertion. There have been other exhibitions where no public-house bars have been permitted and where they have been a great financial success. There have been exhibitions where public-house bars have been granted and where there has been very heavy financial failure. I am not saying in either case that the provision or the absence of alcoholic liquors made the difference between success and failure, but I am saying that the onus of proof as to whether or not it is essential that alcoholic liquors should be supplied rests with those who make the assertion.
We deny, for our part, that visitors would refrain from coming to the exhibition if no outstanding drink facilities were permitted. We say that to the great football matches in Hampden Park 100,000 people come. There are no drinking-bar facilities in Hampden Park, but the people come readily from all parts of the land. There are facilities outside Hampden Park for those who desire them.

Mr. Fleming: How long are those visitors on that ground when they come to Hampden Park?

Mr. Johnston: In some cases, I believe, people arrive there at 10 or 11 in the morning and get away sometimes at about 4 or 5 in the afternoon. Those who are nearer the gates may get out more quickly. I have not timed them. I am merely putting the point that there are great concourses of people coming to what may be called great Glasgow festivals, and coming gladly, when there is no provision of bars. If they want -to get a drink, they can get it outside. Here in this exhibition provision is made which is not made at Hampden Park, whereby they can get a drink with a sandwich and with food if they desire. I said a moment ago that there were instances where great exhibitions had been a financial success without the attraction of the public-house bar. Let me give one or two illustrations. The Crystal Palace Exhibition held in London in 1851 had no drinking facilities, yet it had a surplus of £150,000, which was used to lay the foundation of the great South Kensington Museum. On the other hand, there was the Wembley Exhibition, with 56 licences, and the Government had to pay off £847,000 as part guarantor, while private guarantors had to pay up £907,000 to make good the losses.

Mr. Macquisten: The Government got the money back in the duties on drink.

Mr. Johnston: The point I am putting at the moment is not as to the ultimate destination of the money spent on drink. I am merely putting the point that there have been exhibitions where drink facilities have been given and where there have been huge financial losses, and that there have been exhibitions where there were no drinking facilities where there were huge profits. I am not saying, and I hope that no one will take me as saying, that when they failed financially it was because drinking facilities were supplied. I believe that the bad weather in the summer had a considerable amount to do with the financial results of Wembley. All I am putting is that nobody has ever proved that it is essential that this exhibition in Glasgow must have drinking bars or there will be a financial loss. The Canadian National Exhibition at Toronto has been run for 58 years. For the last 20 years there have been no liquor facilities in the Exhibition, and the profits every year


have run from 130,000 dollars to 274,000 dollars. There was tremendous trouble to keep the bars out of the Glasgow East End Industrial Exhibition of 1890–91. The local residents, including the father of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office, had to give considerable financial guarantees against total loss. That exhibition was such a success financially, without liquor, that it led to the foundation of 'the great People's Palace at Glasgow Green. At the Olympic Village in Berlin in 1936 there was again no liquor bar or licence. I have failed to find out the precise financial result. All I can ascertain is that statements have been repeatedly made both in the British and the German Press that it was a great financial success. On the other hand, we had the wet exhibition in Glasgow in 1888, which went out with wild drunken rioting on the night before the exhibition closed.

Mr. Macquisten: No; I was there.

Mr. Johnston: I do not want to get into controversy with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that after we have made out our case we will get his support in the Lobby. I have Press cuttings here proving the truth of my statement that on the night before the exhibition closed there was wild drunken rioting, with the result that the East End Industrial Exhibition two years afterwards was run on a dry and unlicensed basis. My second reason for objecting to this Measure is that, even if it be granted that there should be licensed clubs, bars—whatever you like—why should not the profits go to the municipal treasury? It is on municipal property. It is a public park. Many hon. Members on this side hold strongly the view that the only desirable and possible changes in liquor licensing should be in the direction of public ownership on the Carlisle system. If it were the case that on this municipal property, owned by the public, licences had to be granted for a six-months' period, surely it is not unreasonable that the profits from that experiment should go to the public treasury and that the licences should be under public ownership and control and not be handed over to a private monopoly.
My third objection is that the exhibition is organised inter aliato promote the cultural development of Scotland. Is any

hon. Gentleman in any part of the House prepared to say that the culture we want to preserve, to develop, to hand down to posterity, to train our children admist, is the culture of the perpendicular drinking bar? Is this the culture we would exhibit to the world? Is this what we are proud of? We have all witnessed scenes —I have not seen them in England, but I have seen them in my native country—that could only be done justice to by the brush of a Hogarth. "Beer Street" and "Gin Lane" can still be seen in Scotland. I do not believe that the light beer such as the English drink is so liable to lead to excitement and frenzy as whisky. I am putting the point that the culture which can be secured from the perpendicular bar is a culture that we ought to get rid of at the earliest possible moment. Whatever changes take place in our liquor habits, we can agree that the last thing we want to preserve and develop is the perpendicular bar.
My last contention is one which I hope will be supported in the Lobby by the Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State for War and other Ministers of the Crown. The Chief Constable of Glasgow, who appeared as a witness on subpoena before the Commission, said that the proposals of this Measure were preferable to no facilities at all at the exhibition. This same chief constable, in his report for 1936, records a 54 per cent. increase over the previous year in drunken motor drivers, and he adds these words:
I record with regret the continued increase in the number of persons apprehended for this very serious offence.
We have nearly three times as many arrests of drunken drivers of motor vehicles in Glasgow, per thousand of the population, as there are in England and Wales. Between 1931 and 1936, 737 persons were killed in the streets of Glasgow and 32,200 injured. The proposal is to provide parking places for 10,000 cars at the exhibition in a more or less congested area. This will be referred to by hon. Members who live in the ward, and who are afraid of their children's ryes if facilities are granted to provide motor drivers with spirits, particularly without food. Mr. Dummett, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, said in sentencing a motorist on 12th June—and this is in an area where the accidents are less than with us:


People are being mown down in the streets—not in platoons, not even in companies, but in battalions a week. That is not rhetoric; it is plain fact. People are being destroyed—even worse, maimed perhaps for life. A very large part of it is due to bad driving by drunken or semi-drunken drivers. That is a weekly occurrence. I am not exaggerating in the least. What is to be done?
If there is one certain fact about the effects of even small doses of alcohol when taken without food—and that is the essential point which we are discussing, alcohol taken without food—it is that the motorist who takes it is a public menace and a danger. The Medical Research Council published under the authority of men like the Professor of Pharmacology of the University of Edinburgh, the President of the Royal Society, the Medical Officer of Statistics at the Ministry of Health, this statement:
To avoid direct injury to the mucous membrane of the stomach and to decrease the risk of inebriation, alcohol should not be taken in a concentrated form and without food.
The Royal Commission on Licensing for England and Wales, whatever else they disagreed about, and they disagreed about many things, were united upon this:
According to evidence given before us it is the practice of a large majority of motor transport undertakings, municipal, public and private, to require of their drivers total abstinence from intoxicants while on duty. We think this practice wise, and would welcome its universal adoption.
Moreover, the commission unanimously denounce what they call the "perpendicular" drinking habit, and desire to see its progressive disappearance. Finally the British Medical Association were asked by the present Secretary of State for War, when he was Minister of Transport, to set up a special committee of inquiry into the relation of alcohol to road accidents. That was in July, 1935. They report a great and increasing number of convictions for driving while under the influence of liquor. They go on to discuss the effects of what they call sub-intoxication, the effects of small doses of alcohol without food, and say:
The driving of a motor car involves a succession of highly-skilled muscular movements which are dependent on rapid and accurate co-ordination between the eyes, the hands, the feet.
They made tests with typewriting, shooting at a target 200 yards away, walking and climbing, and they came to this conclusion:

Three ounces of whisky affect appreciably the mental processes and neuro-muscular coordination, especially if taken in the absence of food.
That is our case—if taken in the absence of food. Provision has been made for parking 10,000 motor cars, there will be great concourses of people, and restaurant facilities are provided, but this House is being asked to-night to provide facilities for private drinking bars. It is for Parliament to decide, and I cannot believe that that will be carried by Scots votes. If it should be imposed upon us it must be done by a majority of Members of Parliament who do not represent Scottish constituencies. Why should we perpetuate old habits and customs which have become repugnant to the mass of our people? Why should the lives of our citizens be endangered? There is no intention on our part to crab the Exhibition, no intention to prevent what are called reasonable facilities for those who desire refreshments with food. If more restaurant licences are wanted, I have every reason to believe they will not be objected to, but to give these private drinking bars, by the overriding of a public general Act by a private group of citizens, is, in our opinion, a proposal that ought not to be assented to by the House.

8.20 p.m.

Sir Samuel Chapman: Although I shall not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) in the course he has taken in moving the rejection of the Bill, I am sure the whole House will agree that he has done the right thing in initiating this discussion, because such a Measure as this must pass on this Floor and in face of the public opinion of Scotland. My right hon. Friend has made, as he always does, a very strong and animated speech, and with the best of good nature. We are going to have a strenuous Debate, and only for a few moments do I presume to intervene, because through your intervention, Sir, I was made the chairman of this Parliamentary Commission, and I take it that I should not be doing my duty if I shirked saying why, as a member of the commission, I voted in favour of this Bill getting as far as it has got to-day. It is so easy to refuse to serve on a commission. There are not too many Members in Scotland available for this purpose. Many of our colleagues are very busy in other directions. I knew, when I had the honour of


being asked to be chairman of this commission, that it was not going to be a joyride. I did not know any details of the suggestions which were to be made, but I did know that the question before us would be one of those which affect our fellow-citizens in Scotland. They think a great deal more about it than they do about all the questions of foreign policy which take up so much time in this House. I wish to say, also, that a great many of my friends who have taken such a prominent and active part in the temperance movement are worthy of a tribute of respect for all they have done during past years to see that the drinking proclivities of Scotland were gradually lessened year by year.
It is the duty of a commissioner to go into one of these local inquiries with an open mind. Personally I make a point of not reading the papers, of not getting any views at all, until I go into the room, and then I am prepared to listen to both sides, and it is because I have tried to exercise a judicial mind and to listen to both sides that I have come to a conclusion which is different from that which has been expressed by my right hon. Friend. He has referred to the Members of the House not having had the privilege of reading the evidence given to the commission. I wish to goodness every Member had read the evidence. What can I do? I hold in my hands the report of two days' proceedings. If I were to go through those proceedings I could read many interesting paragraphs from the evidence which would controvert a great deal of what my right hon. Friend has said. Who are the gentlemen promoting the Bill? Is it being promoted by a private company, by somebody doing it for profit? The right hon. Gentleman sailed rather near the wind when he suggested—I do not know whether he really suggested, but it seemed to me that he was asking the House to accept the suggestion—that the money was not going for public purposes.

Mr. Johnston: I began by paying a tribute to the promoters of the Exhibition, and what I then said was that the six licences already granted for restaurant facilities had been to private individuals.

Sir S. Chapman: I am not talking of that point at all. Any profit ought to go to the municipality.

Mr. Johnston: For the licences, yes.

Sir S. Chapman: Any profit which accrues from the whole of the Exhibition goes to public purposes. I want to go over the ground very quickly, and not to go into all the details, so I must gallop over it as quickly as possible. Who are these gentlemen? Are they men of straw, men unknown in Scotland? Here is the recent report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas. The Bill is promoted by the Scottish Economic Committee. Who are they? If anybody has read this list which I hold in my hand and which it would take me ten minutes to read, it would be seen that it consists of the most eminent and outstanding men in Scotland. Such a list has never been issued for any purpose in the whole history of Scotland: such eminent men. What does the Special Commissioner say about these men? Let me read a paragraph:
The Economic Committee of the Scottish Development Council was formed in March, 1936, by the Council in consultation with the late Secretary of State for Scotland, following the suggestion made by my predecessor.
These are the words I wish to read:
The members are representative of Scottish industry, finance, transport, travel and labour.
I could read a lot more. They are the most outstanding men in Scotland absolutely, and above suspicion, and on the biggest scale that has ever been suggested for any undertaking in Scotland. These are the men at the back of the Bill. It seemed to be suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that they did not know their job and if they had done as he suggested—no licensed perpendicular bar—the Exhibition would have been just as successful. What happened? My colleague will speak. For two days we had before us 26 of these outstanding men in rotation. I never swore as chairman so many men in my life, one after the other, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and they told us, as they conceived it, the truth. Am I to read extract after extract of their evidence? I shall confine myself to reading three extracts. There is the chairman of the Exhibition, Mr. Cecil Weir, very well known. I do not want to talk about him. Everybody knows him. I want to give the qualifications of these men, but I omit that. I think hon. Gentlemen know them so well in Scotland that I can omit all that. This is the evidence


of Mr. Weir, the chairman of the Exhibition:
I believe that it will lead to the better conduct of the Exhibition to have the facilities inside the Exhibition. There is far more prospect in my opinion of disorder and misconduct if no such facilities exist.…We believe that with the licensing conditions properly controlled there would be no prospect whatever of misconduct in the Exhibition.
The House may say that Mr. Weir does not know his business, but that was part of the evidence which Mr. Weir, in his responsible position as chairman of this great Exhibition, presented to us as a commission.

Mr. E. J. Williams: That is only a matter of opinion.

Sir S. Chapman: Of course. We were there to get opinion. I will tell the hon. Member what opinions we had on the other side in a few moments. Hon. Gentlemen say opposite that they represent working-class constituencies, but there were working-class representatives in the witness box. There was a gentleman named Mr. Charles N. Gallie. Is he unknown to hon. Gentlemen opposite? I will give his qualifications. [HON. MEMBERS: "We know them all."] I will tell hon. Gentlemen who do not know him, exactly who he is. This was the examination:
I think you are the Scottish Secretary of the Railway Clerks' Association?—That is so.
And you are treasurer of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress?— Yes.
That is important. What did he say? There is page after page of his evidence, but I will see whether I can boil it down and get just two or three sentences from what he said:
I should think hundred.; of thousands of the visitors will not want to purchase meals and probably hundreds of thousands of them would not be able to purchase meals: I take the view that if married men, a working man and his family, go to the Exhibition—and, after all, there are married men who are permitted to enjoy a glass of beer with the consent of their wives—it would be very unfair and unreasonable that they should be required to separate themselves from their family in order to get a glass of beer.
Then he goes on to say:
I know from long practical experience of business and working men's organisation "—
so that the right hon. Gentleman has not everybody on his side who knows only about working men's organisations—.

that the exhibition will be a meeting ground of people from all parts of the British Isles, and again I think it would be unreasonable unless those people were permitted to exchange hospitable greetings with each other with a sociable glass of beer.
That is one of your own representatives.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Was it made perfectly clear that this Mr. Gallie was not acting in any official capacity or as representing the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, but that he was merely representing a personal opinion?

Sir S. Chapman: Of course, we knew that. We were not altogether a commission of "duds." But I thought that the hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted me would like to know that the Treasurer of the Trades Union Council came before us on his own account. There was a lady named Miss Eleanor Stewart, a Justice of the Peace of the City of Glasgow. She is also a woman organiser of the Transport and General Workers' Union—so evidently she does not live in a palace or a castle—and a member of the Ministry of Labour General Local Employment Committee. Her evidence goes on:
Are you a member of the Women's Committee of the Scottish Trade Union Congress?—I am.
Of course, she was not speaking on behalf of the Trades Union Congress; we know that; but she was a lady who moves among the working class, just as hon. Members do, and as we on this side do. What did she say? She said:
My view on this matter is that the Exhibition is not a local exhibition, but is an Empire exhibition, and so we have to cater for all tastes of the people who attend that Exhibition, and it is because of that that I am supporting this application for a Provisional Order.
I went there to listen, and that evidence was laid before me. My right hon. Friend comes along, very naturally, with some extracts from a report of the Chief Constable of Glasgow. Sometimes chairmen of commissions have very unpleasant duties. My duty on that occasion was a very pleasant one, because I had to issue a warrant to the Chief Constable of Glasgow to appear before us. He came very pleasantly, and', in spite of what he had said on other occasions, and of the extracts which my right hon. Friend has read, this is what he said before us:
If there were not drinking facilities in the Exhibition ground, my feeling is that there would be a tremendous number of people who


would want to get pass-out tickets, and they would probably go and flood the two public houses which are in very close proximity to the Bellahouston site. From my point of view I think that is undesirable. I would rather the people have what one might call restricted facilities than have them coming out for that purpose of drinking and getting too much and coming back again.
That was the evidence given to us by the Chief Constable of Glasgow. What could I do, as a humble Member listening to all this advice? I had to listen to 26 of them one after the other. What happened? When we had heard the evidence of these gentlemen, Mr. Morison, the learned counsel who was against the Bill made a most admirable speech. That was towards the end of the second day, and my hon. Friend and I were anxious to know what was going to happen on the third day, so I said to Mr. Morison:
We will take your evidence.
Much to my surprise he said.
I have no evidence to submit.
I will read what he said, because I think it is important. He said that this matter depended entirely upon principle—I will come to that in a moment—and, when he sat down, his last words were:
That finishes my case
I then asked him:
How long do you think your witnesses will take?
He replied:
I have no evidence to lead. As my opposition, as I explained, is on principle, I have no evidence to lead—
We did not get a word of advice, we did not get a man in the witness-box to tell us what my right hon. Friend has been saying just now—not one. The principle that my right hon. Friend mentioned was that it was proposed to destroy, by what may be called a small Act—a local Act—another Act which applies on a national scale, and that we have no right to override the opinion of a community, however small, by altering it for a particular purpose.
We had to look at this matter from a common-sense point of view. We asked the promoters of the Bill how it was that they did not try to overturn the vote which had been taken some years previously, and make the area a "wet" area, because if they had gone to any other park in Scotland, or any other part of Scotland, there would not have been

this trouble. They all came to the conclusion, however, that Bellahouston was an absolutely central and ideal place for this Exhibition. Then we asked them—it came out in evidence, but I have not time to read it—why they did not have another vote. They said that they had taken counsel's opinion on the matter and talked it over, and had come to the conclusion that they would prefer to make the small area which Bellahouston represents—only 153 acres out of the whole of the dry district of Pollokshields, or about the same proportion as the space below the Bar here bears to the rest of this House—wet for six months, but not to alter the conditions over the rest of the large area of Pollokshields.
If they had gone for a vote, the previous vote might have been reversed, and Pollokshields might have gone wet for years to come. It was really out of consideration for the majority of the voters of Pollokshields that they did not do that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I beg hon. Gentlemen to believe that they are not the only people who think things out quietly. There are people in Scotland at this moment who are running the national development of that country for the purpose of helping dear old Scotland, and hon. Gentlemen opposite must not jeer at them. They may have made a mistake; it is quite probable; but that is the question that we had to settle—whether for six months we should allow that space to be wet in a ring fence, with admission always paid for, and not allow a public house to be put down in any street or road which is dry and inhabited at the present moment in Pollokshields. The small space in question is uninhabited, there is not a living soul there; and we are leaving the inhabited part of Pollokshields exactly as it is. For six months this area is to be in a ring fence, and afterwards everything will be as it was before.

Mr. Robert Gibson: May I ask the hon. Member this question? If he had had any evidence of the facts which my right hon. Friend has put before the House, would his decision have been different from what it was?

Sir S. Chapman: I will reply to the hon. and learned Member in these words, that someone might have been put up to contradict his evidence. But I was not entirely convinced and would like to hear


evidence from the other side. Then what would my opinion have been? I had to give a decision of some kind, and I resolved in my own mind that I could not come to any other decision. These eminent gentlemen are shouldering a terrific responsibility with £1,000,000 guarantee and £10,000,000 in the building and exhibits. With such great responsibilities was I going to say that they were wrong and that the exhibition would be just as great a success without it? Their anxieties and responsibilities were great, and I was not going to add: to their burdens. I know they are men of honour and I know that their honour will not be tarnished.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I can in all sincerity corroborate what the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman), whom so many on this side call friend, has said about his judicial mind and the high purpose with which he acted in this not too agreeable duty. I should like, lest there should be the slightest misapprehension, to say in the first place that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston), in speaking of public and private profit, was referring only to the proceeds of these licences going to individuals. He was far from suggesting that those who are promoting the exhibition were doing it for any private gain. I differed from the hon. Member for South Edinburgh on one point. He read a long parade of names, and said that they were the most outstanding men in Scotland. I always understood that the most outstanding men in Scotland were here, and I hope the hon. Member will revise in his own interests and ours his opinion as to the outstanding men in Scotland. I listened carefully to the hon. Member and I must say that I was more struck by certain things which were not in his speech than by anything in the speech. I thought he would have given us some precedent for this extraordinary proposal, in which Parliamentary powers are sought to set aside a public law by the method of Provisional Order. That is a complete innovation and the hon. Member has not even given us a precedent for it.
Indeed, the Provisional Order is in defiance of rights which the general legislation has conferred on the voters in the Pollokshields Ward of the City of Glasgow. I have often heard that it is possible to drive a coach and six through an Act

of Parliament, but this is the first time I have ever known Parliament itself invited, to use a Scottish phrase, "to get up on the dickie" and drive its own coach and six through one of its unrepealed Acts. That is the position. It may be said that national rights should overrule local privileges, but it should be done in a Parliamentary way, and by the procedure provided by Parliament. My right hon. Friend in his very fine speech made it plain that under the Act of 1913 it is allowable to have licensed restaurants in the area, and that eight of them have been so granted without opposition on the part of the temperance party, although they might wish to see it otherwise. But we recognise, in the words of the Act itself, that there are special circumstances, the kind of circumstances which were conceived by those who framed the legislation. I want to make it plain that right through all that legislation there was opposition to the drinking bar. From the days of Mr. Pixie's Bill in 1909, right to the Debates in Standing Committee in 1912, it was emphasised on all sides that there must be no drinking bar. I will read the condition as it is at present:
There shall be on certificated premises no drinking bars or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the consumption of excisable liquors.
Mr. McKinnon Wood, who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, emphasised that point, and it was, if possible, more strongly asserted by those who opposed the Bill in some respects. Mr. Frederick Whyte, the then Member for Perth said that on no account must there be a drinking bar; and he gave as his reason:
Experiences in other countries similar to this have shown that if a drinking shop is carried on not simply and solely as a drinking shop, an appetite for drinking will be diverted in a very large measure.
There was a division in the committee on one point of the law which obtains in Scotland—namely, that if the proceeds of the sale of liquors are more than two-fifths of the total proceeds, then after the first year, or after any later year, the licence cannot be renewed. There must be that proportion of food to liquor, and there was some difference of opinion between Sir George Younger and others as to whether that was not too strict a proportion on which to insist, but as lo drinking bars there was no difference whatsoever.
My hon. Friend has referred to the fact that no witnesses were called by counsel. As a matter of fact, what we asserted then and are asserting to-night is the principle that you should not over-ride a general public Act in this way. Those of us who are opposing this could have called any number of witnesses. We could have kept them days together on this, but counsel did not see that it was going to serve any good purpose. It might be taken for granted that there was strong opposition. You have this particular fact that over 4,000 in the district presented a petition. I do not wish to exaggerate or to over-value that fact. It is uncommonly like the number that voted "no licence" on these various occasions. I am sure that my fellow Members here will corroborate me when I say that I have not known of a case, or very few where there has been such an expression of keen interest and opposition. These letters I hold, are only a recent number of what I have had, and not one of them is asking us to vote in favour of this Order. I do not dwell upon the reasons why they did not take a poll. The best reason of all was that there was little prospect, with 63·27 per cent. voting against any change from being a dry area, that they could have succeeded in that way. I do not know that it is worth dwelling upon. There might have been some difficulty in many districts of Glasgow. There are three no-licence areas in Glasgow and eight that are under limitation—eleven in all. I think that I know Glasgow as well as most people, and I could have taken the promoters to a very good site where this difficulty would not have arisen.

Mr. Macquisten: Where?

Mr. Barr: I do not think that it would be advisable to drift on to that. I am speaking with a site in my mind, but I do not go beyond that. I do not dwell either upon the reason given that the success of the Exhibition would largely hinge upon this question. That has been so well answered by my right hon. Friend that I will not go into these various instances of what you would call successful dry exhibitions, but it is for the promoters, whether there are to be bars or not, to make this Exhibition a success. It rests upon them. A Glasgow cinema manager at Tradeston on the south side had a strong appreciation of

this position. When this evidence was given, and it came out that it was declared that the whole success of the Exhibition was hinging on this matter, he put up an advertisement for the Ardgowan Cinema:
The booze may he required to get the Exhibition set a-going. Meantime the Ardgowan is confident that their excellent programme will be a sufficient attraction.
That brings me now to the question of order. We had various opinions, I cannot call them more, though we pay deference to them—of Mr. Cecil Weir, convener of the management committee, who believes that better order would be kept in this way, than some other way, and the same applies to the statements of the Chief Constable, whom I highly respect but with whom I have differed on these matters many times. It has not been indicated here to-night, but it is in the evidence, that in connection with one of these exhibitions there had been such good order that there were only two convictions for drunkenness within the boundaries of the exhibition of 1911 during the whole period. I do not think that we should attach great importance to that point. I cannot conceive that the promoters of an Exhibition would allow a system under which men would be brought up day by day for being found drunk and disorderly within the Exhibition buildings. As a matter of fact there were plain-clothes officers who were appointed to shepherd out of the ground any visitors who appeared to be under the influence of drink.
Reference was made to some excesses in 1888. I have not newspaper evidence regarding that time but I will take the 1901 exhibition partly because Mr. Weir, the convener, himself said that the last exhibition to be held in Scotland nearest in size to the forthcoming exhibition was the International Exhibition held in Kelvingrove Park. I will take the liberty of reading two extracts as to drunken riots which took place on the closing day at that exhibition. I take the following from the "Glasgow Herald" of the 11th November, 1901:
Towards nine o'clock the licensed refreshment bars were so crowded that more people could not be admitted. The proprietors thought that the best thing to do in the circumstances was to stop business. This did not please would-be customers and they testified their displeasure by smashing tumblers and furniture, and, when ejected, throwing stones and other missiles through the windows.


The "Glasgow Evening News," on the same occasion, described the scenes round the lager beer bar:
Here a few unruly spirits early took possession, and wanton destruction of glasses and breaking of windows led to the stoppage of supply, and consequent clearance of the establishment by the police. During the non-serving period the scene inside was more maudlin magnified. From all corners came the sound of noisy choruses, argumentative drunken drivel, and the crush of broken glasses as the crowds swept to and fro.
The article goes on to describe that when the Lord Provost and the senior magistrate appeared to quell the riot, they were pelted with flying glasses and empty bottles and not allowed to speak. We should visualise something of the dimensions of what is put before us here. We are informed by the promoters that this exhibition will be two and a-half times as large as any previous exhibition. That is to say, that it will be five times larger than the 1888 exhibition in point of numbers. A census was taken on 6th October, 1888, of those who entered the drinking bars on that one day in that exhibition. The numbers who entered the four drinking bars were 32,230—not perhaps individual persons but visits. One might go oftener than once. If this is five times larger, you have to visualise a system of drinking bars with the presence of 150,000 people on a single Saturday.
I pass now to another aspect which appeared in what was read from Mr. Gallie's evidence and from some other evidence. It is in the Provisional Order:
To cater properly for the needs of visitors from all parts of the British Empire and from foreign countries.
I would point out that many of our kindred from the Dominions and other parts of the British Empire live under much more drastic laws in regard to liquor than we do here. In New Zealand they close every day at six o'clock in the evening. In South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania they have six o'clock closing. In Queensland the closing hour is eight o'clock, and in Western Australia nine. In Canada, there is prohibition in Prince Edward Island; and in four Provinces you cannot buy on-liquor at all. You can buy it in a bottle but not in any drink bar can you buy it for consumption. That obtains in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan.
We have heard many times the statement about giving hospitality to visitors. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) was a member of the City Council when they passed a regulation in October, 1925, that no intoxicating liquors should be provided at any function held under the auspices of the corporation. It was suggested that that rule should not apply when the the Dominion and Colonial Premiers visited Scotland after the Colonial Conference of 1926. They were twitted for so long about that matter that the corporation reaffirmed their rule, not by a bare majority but by 59 votes to 26, in 1927.

Mr. Leonard: And the visitors still came.

Mr. Barr: In the course of that controversy the "Glasgow Herald" took a slight part and said, among other things, that it was a poor compliment to pay to the Dominion and Colonial Premiers that they alone of all men could not enjoy a Corporation banquet unless they upset the rules of the City Council. Within the last two months there was an outcry with regard to the visit of the Dominion Premiers who came north after the Coronation. I have here a menu of the banquet they attended. I will not read it, because it would take up too much time of the House; it would be easier to tell of what was not in the menu than to say what was in it. The 10s. 6d. dinner which the Kitchen Committee provided here on Coronation day was a fraud and a swindle compared with what was supplied at this particular banquet. Were they disgruntled? No. They went back to the Dominions and the Colonies lauding the hospitality of the City of Glasgow, and saying that never again would they listen to any of the silly jokes about the meanness of the Scot.
I must hasten to a close, and I will return to the democratic aspect of the subject. It has been said to me that Pollokshields is an aristocratic ward, and that the people there have liquor for themselves, and are well-to-do socially. They are not so aristocratic as some people think. I have lived there myself and it was not a "barless" area then. If we take the no licence areas and the limitation areas, the figures are 29 and 22 respectively. These areas cover some of the most democratic working-class areas in the country. Democracy is extremely


sensitive, and if you offend it in one point you break it in all. I would point out that this is democracy weighted and handicapped. Before they can get a "no-licence "they must have not less than 55 per cent. of the total votes cast and not less than 35 per cent. of the number of voters on the roll. If we examine the figures we should find that a good few Members of this House, if that test were imposed, would find their elections null and void. The Secretary of State for Scotland would be the very first to fall under such a test. He succeeded in polling 35·27 of all the voters on the roll, and 48·34 per cent. of the votes cast. We should be sorry, if there were such a law, to have his election declared null and void and to lose his valuable services, but that calamity would not occur if such a test were imposed. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends would promote a Provisional Order which would lift Kelvingrove out of the surrounding constituencies, and would "deem that no poll had taken place in that area." The right hon. Gentleman would be able to say that it was absolutely necessary to the success of the Government exhibition that he should thus be returned.
We are told that there is no interference proposed with the rights of the electors because this is only a temporary matter, but if we begin this contracting out, and begin it to-night, there is no end to which we might not go. I have more than once presented Bills for self-government for Scotland. If we were looking only at this matter from that aspect, it might not be a calamity if this Order were thrown out or if the strong opinion of Scotland were overruled, but there is something higher than self-government, something higher than any party question. I have seen this House on occasion throwing aside its party colours and rising to heights of moral grandeur; and I would appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House to unite and make this such a day and such an hour in the history of our beloved Scotland, and in the noble records of this honourable House.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: No one could have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) without realising the sincerity with which he

holds his views and the deep conviction which he has expressed. He cannot speak at any time in any place in Scotland on these matters without obtaining the respect of men of all parties. Our country is a temperance country. We are temperate in our outlook. No one who has been brought up, as I have been, in a Presbyterian home, in a temperance home, and who represents as I do a constituency packed with temperance workers, and no one who has seen the labour and the achievement of the temperance movement in our country could possibly deny that those achievements are great and, as the hon. Member said, have raised the moral standard of the whole of our people. I am not only a supporter of temperance, but I practise it, probably as faithfully as any Member of this House. It is unfortunate that this sort of issue is raised on an occasion of this kind.
But I have another loyalty. I happen to be, with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson), a member of the Management Committee of this Exhibition. My hon. Friend is unavoidably detained outside to-night, and he asked me to apologise for his absence. I want to put some of the views of my colleagues on that Management Committee, but may I first make reference to one or two of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate? He said he wanted to make a moderate and temperate speech. I think he succeeded in that; but he made one or two statements which, I think, were not quite so accurate as those which usually fall from his lips. He asked, by whom is this Provisional Order promoted? He said that this Order is to be imposed upon us by men not one of whom is directly or openly representative of the working classes of Scotland. Those were his words. I think I have given them accurately. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has mentioned two persons who took some part, if not in promoting—

Mr. Johnston: I was talking about the decision to be taken to-night by the directly-elected representatives of the working classes who are here. I was referring to the decision to be taken in this House.

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend is quite right. He has spoken of his friends


in this House. But he said that this Order will be imposed on us by men not one of whom is directly representative of the working classes in Scotland. My right hon. Friend did not say "in this House," although he might have meant it. If he and his friends understand what he meant, that is all to the good; but other hon. Members may not understand the situation, and the outside public may not.
This Provisional Order is promoted by the Management Committee of this Exhibition. Who are the members of the committee of management? There are, first of all, the four Lord Provosts of Scotland, representing public life in the country, including of course the Lord Provost of Glasgow, who is at the head of a local government body which is friendly disposed in politics to the right hon. Gentleman. Surely he may be regarded as not unsympathetic to, not unconnected with, and not without understanding of the working classes in Scotland. Other members include Mr. Dollan, late Treasurer of the City of Glasgow, who is a most prominent, admired and respected representative of the organised working classes in Scotland; Mr. Gallie, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, once a great ornament of that party over there in this House, a man with strong temperance views. Therefore, I submit that my right hon. Friend scarcely conveyed an accurate impression.

Mr. Johnston: You have no right deliberately to misrepresent me after I have specifically said that when I was speaking about the representatives of the working classes I was referring to hon. Members here. The hon. Member is not entitled to continue these methods of controversy here.

Mr. Stewart: I really do not understand my right hon. Friend. If I have misunderstood him I am sorry, but it is certain that he failed to tell us the facts that I have recited in the House; and these are essential facts. I pass from these what I regard as smaller matters, to the greater issues with which we are confronted. I could answer the right hon. Gentleman when he talked very properly about what he called the monopolists. I understand that he feels a little uneasy that the control of six out of eight restaurants should be placed in the hands of a single man or a single firm. I very much appreciate the point he has made, and I say, frankly, as a member of the Management Committee, that if I thought

there was to be any unfair use made of the Exhibition to boost the drink trade, I would resign from the committee at once. There is no one on the committee, so far as I am aware, who is the least desirous of doing it. There is not one of us who is not strongly of the view that temperance must mark every day of the Exhibition.
But it is a matter of plain organisation. I do not think it will be possible, indeed, I am informed that there is no machinery in existence which would enable the Government or the local authority to run licensed premises. That being so, the only course open to the Management Committee would be either to run the refreshments themselves or let them out to tender. I have here some notes; but time is short, and I will try to summarise them. I do not think the Exhibition could have done it. To run ordinary refreshments involves also running the whole restaurant business. My colleagues were confronted with this problem: Are we able really to run the whole of the restaurant side under direct labour in this Exhibition? It was asking the committee to undertake too great a responsibility to run the whole catering business of the Exhibition, and, like sensible men, and in accordance with the principles laid down, they have let out all the catering for tender. It seemed a more efficient way, a way that would lead more effectively to the proper control of the restaurants, if one firm were to do that.

Mr. Leonard: Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman one or two nights ago felt very perturbed about it?

Mr. Stewart: Yes. I will explain the observation of the hon. Member. He and I were discussing this very matter outside privately. He expressed to me his doubts about it—

Mr. Leonard: The monopoly.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, the monopoly. I so much respected the views of the hon. Member that I took the trouble to make immediate inquiries, and the remarks I have made now are the result of those inquiries. I want to pass now to the character of the Exhibition itself. Here is a great Imperial demonstration, taking place, as it happens, in Glasgow. The Exhibition will be the greatest that has been held anywhere in the world since Wembley 13 years ago. In area, in size, it is slightly less than Wembley; but in many other respects it will be a good deal


larger. We have a list of honorary presidents which really entitled my hon. Friend to claim that it is under the patronage of a very distinguished body. It includes the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench, for example, and the right hon. Gentleman who represents Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). Here is an effort which we are making to reflect within Bellahouston Park the life and culture of the people of a quarter of the earth's surface. It is a remarkable effort which we have set ourselves. Every Dominion in the Empire is to be represented. Every Dominion Prime Minister is an honorary President of this Association. His Majesty the King is Patron, and Her Majesty the Queen is Patron of the women's section.
Here is an enterprise which has attached to it oustanding men not only in Britain but throughout the Empire. Every colony will be at the Exhibition—West Africa, Southern Rhodesia, East Africa, Malay, the West Indies and others. Our home country is to be represented, too, in a pavilion for which the Government are responsible which will show something of the unique services that we provide for the British people. Scotland will have its own pavilion and a Highland village. I am not sure that the hon. Member who last addressed us is not assisting in that direction. There are to be great palaces, one of them covering more than five acres of land alone, displaying the products of almost every side of our national life—engineering, science, transport, building and mining. There is to be a palace of art in which we are trying to make the first reliable collection of the great masters of Scottish painting. We hope we shall succeed. We are scouring the country to make it a success. There is to be a concert hall, conference halls, a sports stadium and an amusement park which will rival, if not surpass, anything that has previously been presented in any country in the world. Here is something which may justly claim to be approaching greatness. This great exhibition, the greatest that the world has seen except Wembley, which will cost £10,000,000 to produce, is backed by the pennies of Scotland to the extent of £750,000. I say pennies because Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee are drawing rates from their poorest citizens to make their contributions.
We must face this as a great business proposition with no parochial views of any kind. We expect that we shall be employing regularly something in the region of 10,000 people every day. Who is to be there? Who are the people for whom we are providing restaurants and all the rest of it? Certainly Glasgow and the district, but we know from our sale of season tickets that Scotsmen and women from all parts of the country, workers, male and female, in the factories around Glasgow, are contributing their pennies a week now for their season tickets. It is to be a great concourse of Scottish people. Our inquiry bureau confirms that there are to be tens of thousands of people, not only from England but from France, Germany, Holland, Spain, Russia, South America, the United States—all over the world. Such an exhibition, which is to be the commercial centre of the British Empire for six months, which will be a magnet for the world, where we shall be the hosts to the people of all countries is not the place nor the occasion for imposing niggling restrictions. If the site were in any other part of Scotland than Bellahouston, we should never have been faced with this problem. Because 4,000 people 12 years ago voted one way, surely we are not going to prevent the exhibition authorities from extending no more than ordinary refreshment facilities to all the visitors of the world. Surely that cannot be the desire of the House.

Mr. Davidson: Surely the hon. Member will agree that there is no attempt to debar foreign visitors from having refreshment facilities? It is one particular kind of facility.

Mr. Stewart: I am sure the hon. Member does not misunderstand me. I am asking only that we shall offer to our visitors precisely the same possibilities of refreshment as we did at Wembley, as they do in Paris, and as they have done at nearly every great exhibition of recent years. There are a few exceptions I admit. There is no proof available one way or the other regarding this matter. You can only go upon experience. We have searched the country for those with the best experience in these matters, and we have taken their counsel.
I am speaking to-night as a Scottish Member who believes, and has made public his belief, in the devolution of


Scottish business. I believe that this House should, as far as possible, devolve Scottish business to Scotland.

Mr. Magnay: On that point, I suggest that it might be a tentative way of bringing in Scottish Home Rule to-night if Englishmen in the House would abstain from voting.

Mr. Stewart: I put this point to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling. The right hon. Gentleman and I share views closely similar on these matters of devolution. This Bill is the machinery which we have adopted for devolving this piece of business to Scotland. This House appointed the commission of inquiry, composed of Scottish Members, to go to Scotland, to hear Scottish evidence, and to get a Scottish atmosphere. That commission was given the power and duty to bring recommendations here. It has done so. Surely, it is not right for those of us who believe in devolution to turn round and, as it were, deny and ignore the recommendations of the commission. I think this is a case where, from a constitutional point of view, the House has to stand by its own commission. For that Parliamentary reason, if for no other, I beg the House to approve this Order.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: I listened carefully to all that was said by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) in the hope of hearing a single sentence dealing with the issue before the House. I was seriously disappointed. The hon. Member exercised his rights to deal with everything except the issue before us, and he finished with the most amazing argument I have ever heard. He said that he believed in devolution; he said that a commission set up under the Private Procedure Act had been sent to Scotland and had made inquiries, and that the House should now entirely upset the rights given to the people of Scotland alone to deal with licensing in their respective areas. I hope those who are interested in devolution will take note of that argument of the hon. Member for East Fife.
As a member of the commission, I agree with the first remarks made by the chairman of the commission, who addressed the House at the opening of the

Debate. It is not always an easy job to deal with Provisional Orders. It is not always a popular job to do work on some of these commissions. From my experience of this commission, I know it was not an easy job. We were willing to sacrifice our holidays, and we knew that in dealing with this particular problem our task would be an unpopular one. If I am asked by this House or by any authority to undertake a responsibility, I am prepared to face it without fear of the consequences. I give full credit to those who are opposed to my view to-night, for they are equally as honest as I am, although we hold entirely contrary views. Let me consider what is the position. The commission was set up to inquire into a Provisional Order. It came to a decision, and by three votes to one it was decided that the Preamble was proved. I believe in democracy. The hon. Member for East Fife challenged the accuracy of certain statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). I will quote from a Press report of a speech made on this problem by the hon. Member for East Fife. At St. Andrews, he said:
I am, and have always been, a convinced supporter of temperance, but next year Scotland will be host to the whole world, and, as such, I think we are bound to offer the normal facilities for refreshments to our visitors.
I remind the hon. Member that power was provided by the Temperance (Scotland) Act to grant all that is being asked of this House to-night, but the power was vested in the electors within the Pollokshields ward of Glasgow. By a Provisional Order to be passed, I believe mainly by English Members of the House —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] If English Members would take the advice of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay), they would abstain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?") It will be very interesting to see the result when the Division takes place to-night.

Mr. Macquisten: There are no abstainers among the English fellows.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Why should not the English Members take part in the Division, since it is an Empire Exhibition?

Mr. Westwood: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend from Scotland has missed my point.

Mr. MacLaren: He is an Irishman.

Mr. Westwood: I am merely telling hon. Members that it might be well to accept the advice that has been given. The normal facilities could have been granted, through the Temperance (Scotland) Act, by the Scottish people. In his speech, the hon. Member for East Fife went on to say:
A special commission of inquiry examined the question during the summer, and unanimously recommended that the Provisional Order should be approved by the House of Commons.
From where did the hon. Member get that information?

Mr. Stewart: This is the first time I have heard that the hon. Member was in a minority. I am sorry I made that remark. As far as I know, until to-night it was not made public anywhere that the hon. Member was in a minority.

Mr. Westwood: No hon. Member in dealing with the work of other Members of the House, who have been willing to give their services without price and to face unpopularity, if necessary, in the decisions they took, ought to misrepresent their views. Surely, the only fair thing for the hon. Member for East Fife to have done, knowing that I was a member of the commission, would have been to inquire at least whether there was unanimity. The promoters at least played the game. Their Parliamentary agent and their representatives interviewed me. They intended to issue a statement to hon. Members and to say that there was unanimity; but immediately they understood the position, they did not state to Members of the House, in the case which they presented, that the commission was unanimous.
What exactly took place? I wish to give credit to my colleagues on the commission, and I am sure the chairman of the commission will, if necessary, verify what I am about to say. I disagreed with the majority, but I am a democrat, and had to accept the decision. There is no opportunity for any minority to have the right even to express views on matters of this kind, according to the procedure under which we work when dealing with Provisional Orders. It is the task of the chairman to answer the question of the Clerk, "Is the Preamble proved?" and the answer is merely,

"The Preamble is proved." As far as I know, there is no provision which enables the chairman of the commission to say, "This is agreed to only by a majority." There is no indication given as to what led to the decision, which may be quite a good thing at times. That procedure was followed by the chairman of the commission. It was simply indicated to the promoters that the Preamble was proved.
Before we went into court in order that the decision should be made known by the chairman I said: "You know my views. I have expressed them. I moved a certain thing, but I did not get a seconder. I am a democrat and I accept that, but I ask the permission of my colleagues, if and when the opportunity occurs, to state my view on the Floor of the House of Commons." To the credit of my colleagues, without hesitation they said, "We grant you that permission." If they had not done so, being a democrat, I would not have taken part in this Debate, but I have the approval of my colleagues in stating my view.
What was it? I listened to all the evidence. We all listened carefully to it, and it was admitted by the Empire Exhibition authorities and by those opposing this Order, that everyone is most anxious to see the greatest success for the Exhibition. Let me point out to the House that not one witness examined during the two days occupied by the hearing of evidence, claimed on oath that the Exhibition would be made a failure if this Provisional Order were not obtained. I myself put questions on that point to the witnesses. I have here the evidence given by Mr. Weir of the Scottish Development Council and I quote question 249, from page 51 of the minutes of evidence. That document, as has been pointed out, was not made available to Members of this House. I am willing at the end of this discussion to sell a copy of the evidence for one-third of the price that was demanded for it from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Johnston). The question which I put was:
You have just said that it would be desirable from every point of view that this facility, or at least the power to grant facilities, should be given by the commission. Do you think for a single moment that drink or no drink will have any effect, in any shape or form, on the success of the Exhibition?


This was the answer of Mr. Weir:
I think that undoubtedly it must affect attendances at the Exhibition whether that Exhibition has the same facilities as other exhibitions have had. I could elaborate that if you wish me to do so.
But there was no claim that if the facilities were not granted the Exhibition would be a failure and no other witness made such a claim. They were prepared to say that it might affect attendances, but not that it would tend to the failure of the Exhibition.

Mr. Macquisten: Surely that means the same thing. If there were no attendances, the Exhibition would riot be a success.

Mr. Westwood: They did not say that there would be no attendances. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) is not following my argument closely.

Mr. Macquisten: The hon. Member said that these witnesses agreed that it would affect attendances if the facilities were not granted. It would all depend on the degree to which it affected the attendances. If it affected them to the extent of 50 per cent., probably the Exhibition would be a failure but the hon. Member has not specified the extent to which the attendances might be affected.

Mr. Westwood: I am not dealing with "ifs" but with the facts. I repeat that no witness claimed that the absence of these facilities would tend towards the failure of the Exhibition. May I remind the House that this is not a question of temperance or no temperance? We heard the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) speak of his temperance principles and his fight for temperance. It does not affect the argument if I tell the House that I am a lifelong teetotaller, that I know not the taste of intoxicating liquor, that I am a past Chief Ruler of the Rechabites, that I have never used alcohol as a medicine. It does not affect the argument if I tell the House, as I could, that I have undergone an operation and refused to take chloroform because I believe it to be an intense form of intoxication. That has nothing to do with the Question before the House.
Parliament gave power to the Scottish people to decide whether the magistrates in the various areas should or should not

grant licences. That power of the people has been exercised in the Pollokshields ward and the people have decided in favour of no licences. The fact is that there would have been time in this case for a plebiscite of the inhabitants in the ward. That was admitted in evidence. It was suggested first that there might be difficulties in having a plebiscite in time, but as a result of questions put by me it was admitted that it would have been possible for the licensing court to have considered provisionally the application for licences, for the plebiscite to have been taken and for the licensing court to have met after the plebiscite had decided whether the area was to go "wet" or remain "dry." If the plebiscite decided in favour of granting licences the magistrates would have had time to grant the licences.
The argument before the commission was not one of temperance or no temperance and this brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman), who was chairman of the commission. He said that the opponents of the Measure had not called any witnesses. They could have called thousands if it had been necessary, but they were not arguing the temperance case. If they had been, they could have called medical men, economists and ministers of religion, but there was no need to do so. They were not arguing for the cause of temperance. I have here the petition against the Order and it is based on the rightness or otherwise of a Private Bill taking away public rights granted by an Act of Parliament. That is the issue. There were 24 petitioners and there is not a word in the petition about temperance as such. The petition proves, first, that an Act of Parliament gave the Scottish people the right to determine licence or no licence; that that right had been exercised three times in the Pollokshields ward and that the people there had decided or no licence. The petitioners claimed that it was wrong to seek by private legislation to override an Act of Parliament which gave certain rights to the electors. After sitting for two days and hearing no real arguments against that principle, I moved the following:
That the Bill seeks to override a general Act of Parliament, the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, which grants powers to the electors to control licences and seeks to hand this power over to the licensing magistrate. This


ought not be done by a provisional Order, as power is given within the existing Act, the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, to provide them (the Exhibition authorities) with all the facilities they desire, but such facilities to be granted by decision of the electors of the Pollokshields ward first and then by approval of the licensing magistrates.
I got no seconder and by three votes to one it was decided that the Preamble was proved.

Sir S. Chapman: I do not think we voted.

Mr. Westwood: No, because I could not get a seconder there was not actually a vote, but it was a three to one decision. The issue before the House is a simple one and there is only one further point with which I wish to deal. Special reference was made to the fact that Mr. C. N. Gallie gave evidence. I am sorry that the hon. Member did not quote the evidence given by Mr. Gallie. In that evidence he opposed what was termed the "perpendicular bar." This is what he said in answer to question 818:
I would hope that the committee responsible would see to the development more of the Continental cafe system than the mere bar system.
819. Are you against the establishment of what might be called ordinary bars at this exhibition?
The very last answer given by Mr. Gallie was:
I should certainly use every effort I could to provide the alternative form of accommodation.
The alternative form of accommodation is not a perpendicular bar, and Mr. Gallie makes this position quite clear.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The objection which Mr. Gallie expressed is exactly what the exhibition authorities are stating.

Mr. Westwood: That does not affect the issue, which is perfectly clear. It is not a question of a dry or a wet exhibition. It can be a wet exhibition, because eight licences are already granted, and more may still be granted. It is not an issue of success or nonsuccess so far as the exhibition is concerned. It is the fact that a democratic principle granted by this House in 1913 to the Scottish people and the people of the Pollokshields Ward is sought to be overridden by a private piece of legislation. If my colleague had been abstain

ing from voting, I also would have abstained, having been a member of that commission, but as my colleague—I am not quarrelling with him; we admit that each is equally as honest as the other in his convictions—is going into the Lobby to vote for the Bill, I shall go into the Lobby to vote against the Bill, because I believe that rights given to the Scottish people ought not to be taken away by this House, unless you have the courage to take away the whole Act itself. You should not take away these rights by a private piece of legislation, promoted, as it may be, in the alleged interests of the exhibition, but which I believe can be of no real value in making for the success of that exhibition.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I shall speak only shortly, because other hon. Members also wish to speak; and I must not be taken as doing more than, as Secretary of State for Scotland, explaining the position in regard to procedure and, as a private Member of this House, doing my utmost to give my reasons for the vote that I shall cast this evening. On the question of procedure, it seems that the House is a little confused. The point has been made most strongly both by the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) and by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) that something unusual is taking place—indeed, the hon. Member for Coatbridge said unprecedented—in having a Provisional Order which affects public Statutes. But 19 out of 20 of all the Provisional Orders that are promoted in this House do affect public Statutes. That is in fact the common form. There is nothing unusual in a Provisional Order affecting a public Statute, and there is nothing in any degree being "worked" by some small group if this Order is carried to-night by the House.

Mr. Maxton: I am interested in this point, which I am following with a very open mind. Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate it and give us an example of a private Bill which overrides a public Statute in its basic principle?

Mr. Elliot: Every Provisional Order, let us say, obtained by the City of Glasgow—Orders for rating and valuation, Orders dealing with Burgh Police Acts and Local Government Acts—every single one of


these to a greater or lesser extent overrides a public general Statute. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] But these are the facts of the case. Every single Provisional Order which is promoted to some extent or other overrides a public general Statute, and that is why they are promoted. [Interruption.]Let me say "modifies" if hon. Members do not like the word "overrides," which is technically incorrect. There is no overriding. The House passed the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, and it also passed the Private Legislation Act in virtue of which the procedure under which we are now working takes place. That is the first point to clear up, that there is no infringement of democratic rights or of the procedure of this House. This is a democratic procedure which was laid down and it is under that procedure that this discussion takes place.
Now let us see how this arises. The Second Reading of the Bill arises from a Provisional Order. In the first place, under that procedure the original draft Order was deposited with me, as Secretary of State. The Chairman of Ways and Means in our House and the Lord Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords had to examine that draft and to decide whether it should be dealt with as a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, which provided for the devolution to Scotland of such matters and for the examination and discussion of them in Scotland. They decided that it should be so dealt with. The Order was opposed, and therefore it was referred to commissioners to hold an inquiry into it and report. Two Members of this House and two from the other place acted as commissioners and reported by a majority in favour of making the Order. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk not merely dissented, but had an alternative proposal of his own to bring forward. I was under the misapprehension that the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) fell into. When I saw in the evidence that the Chairman reported that the Preamble was proved, I thought that the approval was unanimous. I am sure it was a bona fide mistake which the hon. Member for East Fife made, because in fact I made it myself. The report was in favour of the making of the Order, and after due consideration the Order was made, and it comes before this House as

a Schedule to the Bill now under discussion.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) asked if there was any precedent for an Order which overrode or altered a public Statute in its root principle. The question of root principle was committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means in this House and the Lord Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, and they took the view that the Order did not raise
questions of public policy of such novelty and importance that they ought to be dealt with by a Private Bill.
It was decided, after giving full weight to the opposition, to recommend that the Order should be made. The procedure of Provisional Order legislation provides for a review of the decision of the commissioners being made, if it is thought by the House that that decision should be reviewed, not under the procedure which is brought forward to-night, but under the procedure of a petition for the appointment of a joint committee, for the hearing again of the case.
I am sure it must he in the mind of every hon. and right hon. Member here to-night that the House as at present constituted is an unsuitable body for examining with the accuracy and detail which are necessary and under cross-examination, if necessary, a question such as we have been discussing to-night. The procedure does provide for similar meticulous re-examination to be held if it is thought necessary, but the proposers of the Amendment have not sought to bring that procedure into operation, and I think that if they had they would certainly have run grave risks of weakening the authority of the commissioners and indeed of altering for the worse the excellent procedure which has been set up, by means of which these things are heard by responsible people sitting in Scotland and hearing evidence. That is not my view alone. That is the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), and I beg him to listen while I quote from his own views on this subject, for they seem to me very germane. Speaking as Secretary of State he said;
I find, on an examination of previous cases in which controversy has arisen in the House on Scottish Private Bills or Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, that, while it has not been the practice for the Government to


exercise any form of pressure on Members of the House, Ministers of the Crown, apart from any personal opinion or predilection or interest in the matter at issue, have submitted to the House as a general principle that we should respect the considered verdicts of our local legislation committee and of the Commissioners appointed under our Provisional Order procedure, and that we should not upset or disturb their verdict except on the most cogent grounds. ''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1932; cols. 985–6, Vol. 263.]
With that view I wholeheartedly concur. The right hon. Gentleman may say that he considers that cogent grounds have arisen. Let me quote the procedure he recommended should be followed. Speaking on 11th May, 1933, in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility, for he was no longer then Secretary of State, he recommended to the House as follows. Referring to an hon. Member who had been speaking, he said:
I do not think he attached sufficient importance to the safeguard of control by this House, which undoubtedly exists in the fact that the House can, after a Provisional Order has been examined by the commission, refer it to a Committee.
That was the procedure he recommended when he was considering the question in 1933.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the question was?

Mr. Elliot: It was when we were discussing the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill on 11th May, 1933. He went further and pointed out that this power was a very exceptional and unusual power and that it was very seldom used. He pointed out that only on one occasion had it been used. As he said, it
has only been done once, but that shows that it can be done, that the House had used this power, and would, if necessary, use it again.
He went on to say:
I think, however, that the House has been very wisely guided in determining not to use it except where the conviction is borne in upon Members of the House that it is absolutely necessary.
So that if Members thought that it was necessary to recommend to the House a revision of the verdict of the Commissioners, the procedure to adopt was a petition for a joint committee. Speaking in general terms the right hon. Gentleman said that these Commissions

have done their work well; and the House has been right in saying, 'These people have heard the case on the spot, they have been in touch with the people mainly concerned, we are going to stand by the decision to which they have come'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1933; cols. 1754–5, Vol. 277.]
I could not ask that the point should be better put or more wisely conceived and firmly expressed than that. I do think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen should have taken the procedure of petition to a Joint Committee, which was the proper procedure, if it was asked that the House should reverse a verdict given after so much consideration and after hearing so much evidence. None of us here can go through such ponderous documents as this with the care and attention which we should like. We have to consider whether these commissioners were well and truly appointed to consider the evidence, and it has been affirmed on all sides that they were honourable men who went carefully into it and, as the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) said, they had no hesitation in being bound by the verdict of the majority when it was given. That being so, we are placed in a difficult position to-night.
The Lord Advocate reminds me of a point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), namely, that this document had not been placed in the Library. I thought that he was complaining about the procedure of the promoters. It is the procedure of the House, and whether that should be altered is another matter. It is because Parliament did not contemplate that the House as a whole would be asked to go through the documents again and make up its mind upon the evidence which was set out, that the procedure which has been adopted was decided on.
The main question of principle raised by the Motion for the rejection of the Order is that it sets aside the law governing the sale of excisable liquor in Scotland. I have dealt with that point. There is nothing unusual, novel, undemocratic or in any way blameworthy in an Order of that kind, as it is the case with 19 out of 20 Orders which are brought before this House under our procedure.
The other main point to which exception is taken is that the Order is contrary


to the clear wishes of the inhabitants of the area. Surely that is exactly the point which would have been raised most suitably by means of a Motion for the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses. On the merits of the objection, I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the Act of 1913 under which this Resolution is made, was designed to enable the inhabitants of a particular locality to determine the question of the grant or the refusal or the limitation of licences in the light of the normal local circumstances. It has been said by an hon. Member that the Act foresaw this eventuality. I have the greatest admiration for the foresight and wisdom of our legislators, but I do not think we could reasonably say that in 1913 they contemplated that £10,000,000 worth of public buildings should be put up in Bellahouston Park and be knocked down and carried away in seven months' time. Therefore I say the House has rightly adopted a procedure which will enable it to deal with a position which, I might say, is exceptional and unique. It is highly undesirable that, having regard to the generally accepted practice in connection with Scottish Provisional Orders, a decision should be reached which would inevitably entail an implied censure on the commission.

Mr. Maxton: You rejected the last private Bill which came up from the Committee by an overwhelming majority.

Mr. Elliot: Surely the hon. Member has not followed my argument. I say that a Committee of this House inquired into this matter and I think nobody will deny that to reverse their verdict would imply a certain reflection on their judgment.

Mr. Westwood: In the case of the Members of this House it was fifty-fifty. There was an equal division. One on one side and one on the other. What about that?

Mr. Elliot: What about democracy now? The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) admits that he was voted down by three to one, but says that from another point of view it can be brought out that it was a case of fifty-fifty. What becomes of the argument that no Englishman should vote on the matter in this House? If the Movers of the Motion desire to appear to Caesar

surely by Caesar they must stand. Having sought to turn down a verdict given by Scotsmen in Scotland by a majority of three to one, they cannot complain if, having brought the issue to the wider jury, the wider jury votes upon it and decides the issue. The House would be ill-advised to turn down the Order, because undoubtedly great congestion would then be produced in the public houses which exist, and will continue to exist, whatever we do to-night, within a stone's throw of the doors of the exhibition. Within 200 yards of the grounds of the exhibition there are two public houses. Surely it is inadvisable that we should concentrate the whole weight of the tourist traffic which desires to have a drink into those two public houses, and lose all the control which would be gained by a properly supervised system in the exhibition grounds.

Mr. Messer: What a drunken lot you are expecting.

Mr. Elliot: I think such a result would be most unfortunate. I do not think the committee of the exhibition in what they are doing are in any way seeking to override the expressed wishes of the inhabitants of the ward with regard to the normal circumstances existing or likely to exist in it.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I think the House will agree that the Secretary of State has not convinced many Members by the subtle arguments which he has put up. I always understood that the purpose of a Provisional Order Bill was not to defeat the main principle of any Act that we have passed, but merely to modify, or assist in securing a true interpretation of, the meaning of that Act. I do not think his views that a Provisional Order can defeat the principle of any particular Act will be accepted either on this side of the House or the other. He has also reminded us that we can have a re-examination of the question of these bars after this Provisional Order is passed. I would point out that by passing this Provisional Order Bill we shall have already broken the Act, and that we on this side believe, first of all, in preserving the democratic liberties of the people. Whether we agree with those liberties or not, they are an established fact, and we believe that before we break them and then examine the


whole question we should have a right to examine the propositions of the commission.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member must be under some misapprehension. I said that the opposers could have taken that course, but they preferred not to do so. I did not suggest that they could go back to that now. I merely said that was a course which had been repeatedly recommended to the House.

Mr. Davidson: I must have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, and I accept his explanation, but I would point out that the commissioners had the opportunity of re-examining the whole question, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood). I ask the Secretary of State whether he does not think that the fair method of ascertaining the feelings of the people in this particular area would have been for those who are anxious for these stand-up bars to go to the people and ask for their opinion. The right hon. Gentleman suggested, further, that it would be inadvisable for this House to consider all the evidence that was submitted to the commission. We already discuss many technical matters. We debate workmen's compensation, with its great legal difficulties, and a Factory Act that takes three weeks of Parliamentary time, day after day, with the most critical discussion, yet the Secretary of State for Scotland says that it is not right or conducive to public order that we should discuss the evidence submitted to the commission and the report. Any commission set up by this House to examine any proposition is expected to report to this House for approval or otherwise. We do not give commissions full power to come to decisions as they may care to, or give them a blank cheque.
I speak as a Member resident in the area where the Exhibition will be established. It is true that the bars have to be established in a field or a park where there are no inhabitants, but surrounding Bellahouston Park, and as near to it as I am to the doorway of this Chamber is a tremendous housing scheme where hundreds of thousands of people live, and where there are children and schools, in the closest proximity to Bellahouston Park. The Exhibition is to be situated

on the main high road from Glasgow to Paisley, one of the busiest thoroughfares in Glasgow, where there are trams, omnibuses, private buses, corporation vehicles and a tremendous volume of private cars. The Glasgow Corporation have now laid tramway lines along Craigton Road to where the Exhibition is to be held. I often go there to football matches. The Ibrox ground is one of the largest in Glasgow. We have two greyhound tracks, and parking places for private cars are now being established for more than 10,000 private cars, as was indicated by my right hon. Friend from the Front Bench.
I ask hon. Members to visualise the great stream of traffic that will pass along the roads and through the housing schemes in close proximity to the Exhibition. The area has been considerably increased by housing schemes since the last vote was taken under the Scottish Temperance Act, but no effort has been made by those who support this proposition to get the opinion of the people living in the area. I assure hon. Members that the publicans in Glasgow have a very able secretary looking after their affairs. If he had thought for one minute that there was the least possible chance of overturning the democratic vote of those people, the same publicans and the same secretary would have been in the ward asking people to take another vote under the Scottish Temperance Act. It proves that they knew perfectly well that the people in these housing areas do not desire public houses to be situated at their doors. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) who, I must remark, has proved himself to be one of the most able performers in this House of the operation of looking both ways, stated that he was a keen temperance man, that he had advocated temperance all his life; and now in this House—to assist the cause of temperance, be it noted —he is advocating that not only should restaurant licences be established in the exhibition, in an area where the people do not want them, but also that there should be stand-up bars. I do not know how he can reconcile any temperance viewpoint with that attitude. How any temperance advocate, anyone who professes to be keenly interested in the subject of temperance, can advocate temperance by the setting up inside an exhibition


of stand-up bars where liquor can be obtained in any fashion at all—

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Member could not have heard my previous intervention. The intention is as far as possible not to have stand-up bars, but to have the continental plan of open cafés.

Mr. Davidson: I have no doubt that the intention of the hon. Member may have been modified by the opposition to this Provisional Order. I would remind him of the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I have no doubt that he at least will suffer his inferno at the hands of the temperance people in his constituency at the next election. He also told us, and it was a very good advertisement for this exhibition, that famous men were coming to the exhibition, men of considerable standing throughout the world—Royalty, Dominion Prime Ministers, representatives from the Colonies, and so on; that there were to be established great palaces in this exhibition, amusements, and, he should have added, stand-up bars. I think it is very unfair of him to associate famous men, palaces and Royalty with stand-up bars in the Glasgow Exhibition, I question very much whether his patriotism is going to stand up to criticism, as that of many hon. Members may have to do in the future.
He struck one important point. In Glasgow the local authorities are making every possible attempt to get the school children of Glasgow to attend this Exhibition for educational purposes. In Glasgow, in my boy's school, in every elementary and secondary school, and in the University, the young people are being asked to contribute weekly amounts in order to buy season tickets for the Exhibition. We want these hundreds of thousands of children to attend this Exhibition for educational purposes. Would any hon. Member suggest that it is going to further the educational interests of these children to see those stand-up bars being erected with the support of Members of Parliament who believe that we cannot have educational interests, that we cannot interest the Dominions, that we cannot give the children of this country educational facilities, unless we cater for the desire of a certain section of the community for stand-up bars. But I want to say this for the workers of Glasgow.

The Glasgow working man, in many cases, is prepared to sacrifice his own personal viewpoint, in order that the children of Glasgow will not have to suffer from the conditions of public houses being set up in nearly every street in his area, as was the case in his own childhood. The Glasgow worker is not a drinker; therefore, it is unnecessary to say that Glasgow working men or women will not attend the Exhibition unless we can guarantee a drink without their having to buy a sandwich. The Glasgow working people will attend the Exhibition, and spend money at it, if the authorities, as my hon. Friend suggests, will give them an adequate amount of money to spend.

Mr. Maxton: There are better ways of spending it than that.

Mr. Davidson: I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I believe that this Exhibition will be educational, and that none of us, no matter how humble or how famous, can attend this Exhibition without deriving certain benefits.

Mr. Buchanan: You should solve the problem of housing, and leave the Exhibition alone.

Mr. Davidson: In any housing Debate, I will certainly take my part, and give place to no Member, in demanding decent housing conditions for the people of Glasgow; but we are not dealing with housing now, and I know I should be completely out of order in trying to discuss housing conditions on this question. The Clause here definitely states the object of this Provisional Order. It states:
in view of the large number of visitors from all parts of the British Empire and from foreign countries who will be attending the proposed exhibition it is expedient in order that arrangements may be made to cater properly for the needs of such visitors
and so on. My point with regard to this Provisional Order is that it is unnecessary. Foreign visitors coming to this Exhibition will not be influenced by the fact as to whether there are standup bars or not. As a matter of fact, the customs of many foreign countries are the customs in many English towns, that they should take drink along with their food in the ordinary course of meals. We do not find in England, in France, in Germany or even in America, this


idea that people must have sawdust under their feet in stand-up bars, and be allowed to take their drink in that fashion. These people have a civilised way of taking their drink.
We say that, because this method is objectionable so far as the customs of the people are concerned; because it has established a precedent, whether the Secretary of State agrees or not, by which this House is asked to overturn an Act which gives democratic rights to any people in any particular area with regard to their way of life, this Provisional Order is a violation of all that is democratic. It is not good business from the point of view of visitors or from the point of view of the educational interest of the children of Glasgow, or any other area. I ask hon. Members of this House to recognise the dangers to school children caused by the greatly increased volume of traffic, and say that under no conditions should liquor be placed in the way of the drivers of that traffic. Therefore, I ask Members to go into the Lobby against this Provisional Order.

10.35 p.m.

Sir A. Sinclair: We have had a good-humoured, a serious, and, I think that I may say, a sober Debate on this question, and I do not wish at all to inject heat into it when so far we have had nothing but light. I would like to join in the tributes which have been paid by my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) to the work which has been done by the temperance reformers who have been largely concerned in the agitation against this Provisional Order and in the tribute which was paid by my right hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench to those who have devoted their time and energy to the organisation of this great Empire Exhibition. It is clear that the leaders of opinion on both sides have the utmost respect for each other's motives. It was really unnecessary for the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) to labour the point about the immense influential support there is for this Exhibition. He mentioned the King and Queen as supporting it. He should have added all the temperance societies of Scotland and all the people of Pollokshields who are objecting to the Provisional Order. Nevertheless, I greatly enjoyed his eloquence and enthusiastic irrelevan-

cies, and I realise that nobody among all these promoters has worked harder for the success of the Empire Exhibition than the hon. Member for East Fife himself.
But when the Secretary of State quotes me as being in favour, or being a consistent supporter on every occasion, of the decisions of our local legislation commissions I say that I stand by every word that the Secretary of State read out. I do not know quite what the proportion is, whether it is nine out of 10—it might be 19 out of 20—but I still think that on almost every occasion we ought to give support to the work of our colleagues who serve on these commissions and who hear all the evidence on the spot especially as is usually the case, when the evidence deals largely, if not mainly, with matters of fact upon which decisive evidence can be given by witnesses who know the details of what they are talking about. But, as the Secretary of State very fairly made clear, I did say that, in laying down these general principles, there were exceptional cases which are provided for under our procedure. If there were no exceptional cases, I would be for abolishing this kind of procedure altogether because it would be useless. But because there are these exceptional cases, I support this procedure.
I say that this clearly is one of these exceptional cases, and for these reasons. I will mention, first of all, the fact that, by this Bill, we are depriving electors in our country of Scotland of rights which have been deliberately conferred upon them by Parliament. Those democratic rights ought not to be filched from them by this procedure, but I will come again to that point. The other reason is that this deals with a broad question of political principle which should properly be decided by this House rather than by a small commission or joint committee meeting and hearing evidence. I claim, in support of that opinion, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh himself. Why, his speech this afternoon supports that view. What did he say at the beginning of his speech? What an unenviable task he had. He said that he approached it not without trepidation. That was not his phrase, but it amounted to that. He knew the great forces which would be aroused and provoked by any decision to which this Committee might come. In short he knew


that he was dealing with a basic question of political principle with which he and his Commission were unfitted to deal, and one which ought to be decided by this House. He went on to say that he was very much impressed by the evidence and respectability of the gentlemen who gave evidence before the Commission. So much impressed was he that when he mentioned one who was merely a J.P. of Glasgow he flicked that one aside and went on to tell us of the more eminent people of the trade union and industrial world whom he had had to swear in as witnesses. He told us, with conviction: "And they told the truth." I have no doubt that even less eminent people on going before the Commission would have done their best to tell the truth. He gave examples of the truth they told. It was not absolute truth that they were telling, but it was merely an expression of their personal opinion on matters on which the opinion of any one of us I should have thought was as good as theirs.
One witness went so far as to say that this was an Empire Exhibition, and, therefore, they must have drinking facilities provided. He must have forgotten the case of a successful Exhibition without drinking facilities, namely, that in the great City of Toronto. The hon. Member also said that the Chief Constable of Glasgow went before the commission and stated that he wanted to have these public houses inside the Exhibition. Then the hon. Member asked: "What could I do?" Apparently, it is on the advice of the Chief Constable of Glasgow that the House is being asked to take a decision to override the deliberate verdict of the electors of Pollokshields. The hon. Member went on to say that there was no evidence available from the other side, but that he was very much impressed with the facts and statistics presented by the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. Gibson) he said that he was not entirely convinced by what the right hon. Gentleman had said and that he would have liked to have heard evidence on the other side. At any rate, he was shaken in the view he had held by my right hon. Friend's speech.
It is quite clear that this matter has wider implications and ramifications in the minds of our constituents than the hon. Member appreciated when he was

accepting this evidence as chairman of the commission. He told us again of the eminence and respectability of the witnesses and asked: "Was I to be responsible for saying that these men were wrong? "Yes, I think he ought to have accepted that responsibility. It was a responsibility which rested upon him to make up his mind on their evidence, quite impartially. He said that they were responsible for millions of pounds, that they were men of honour, and he trusted them. I would trust them. I am sure that they are men of honour. They have great responsibility and we should like to help them in regard to that responsibility, but when it comes merely to an expression of opinion such as the opinion that I am about to quote from Sir James Lithgow, the matter is different. Sir James Lithgow said that he considered that the decision made by the Pollokshields electors was calculated to give the Exhibition a bad name and that his desire was to prevent Glasgow's name from being sullied. When that is the kind of evidence upon which eminent people ask the commission to act, it is clear that they are out of their depth.
Only one argument has been brought forward in support of the proposal; that if we do not give these facilities the attendances will fall and it will tend to make the exhibition a failure. The onus of the proof is on the promoters of the Order. We have given two examples of successful exhibitions without these facilities—Toronto, and the East End Exhibition in Glasgow. Some exhibitions have succeeded in spite of having none of these facilities. Some have failed in spite of having these facilities. We challenge the promoters of this Order to name one exhibition which has failed because it has not had these facilities. They have not produced one jot or tittle of evidence or fact which goes to show that the lack of these facilities will tend to make the exhibition a failure. This Provisional Order is not, as the Secretary of State suggested, like other Provisional Orders, merely making provision for additional public services or modifying the provisions of a general Act of Parliament. It strikes at the very base of an agreed settlement on this important question of Scottish temperance reform, a settlement put through under the Local Veto Act.
Parliament has decided that the licensing law of Scotland shall be based on local considerations, local circumstances and needs, and on the wishes of the local community as ascertained by popular vote. In Pollokshields "no licence" has been carried on three occasions by increasing majorities, and we say that this right, which was given by Parliament not to any licensing court but to the electors of the parish, ought not to be filched away and cannot be taken from them without an infringement of democratic principles, unless their consent is obtained to the right being thus disposed of. Democracy is assailed in many countries at this time. Do not let it go forth from this House that we who derive our authority from the democratic principle and the democratic principle only, consider that an express authority given to these electors by an Act of Parliament can be taken away from them by a Provisional Order promoted by people who, however eminent they may be, are only a private company.

10.48 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: I intervene in the Debate partly because for a number of years I have represented in this House the very area about which the discussion arises and partly because I am one of those who hope devoutly that the effort to run an Empire Exhibition in Glasgow is going to be thoroughly successful. I do not doubt that that is the wish of all parties in the House and of all men, whatever view they may take. I am very sensible also of the strong feeling which has always existed in Scotland on the problem of drinking restrictions. It is quite true that this ward in Glasgow has on three occasions voted dry. They have voted dry for reasons which may have varied in some degree, but which in the main, if I judge aright, were directed for the purpose of keeping a residential area free from public houses. When the first vote took place there were something like eight or nine public houses abolished and some grocers' licences.
What are, therefore, the circumstances that the House has to decide? Whatever views hon. Members may take about Parliamentary procedure and the justice of proceeding by Provisional Order or otherwise, what is happening to-night is that after the inquiry in the locality, after

hearing the evidence produced, certainly more fully on one side than the other, by a distinct majority of that tribunal of three to one this Order has been approved and is now before the House. What in effect will happen if this vote is carried in favour of the proposal? It means that in the area which has been transferred to the Exhibition authorities by the municipality, for which they have full and grave responsibility, fenced round and into which no one can go unless they pay some entrance fee, there will be carried out not only the ordinary methods of restaurants and the other method of giving drink without food, but the responsibility for management will be upon the Exhibition authorities.
As to taking away the rights of those in the Pollokshields ward, it is clear that this procedure does not infringe upon any of the steps for which they voted in the area outside this park. It may be argued that if the park were open in the ordinary way to the public, as it is generally, it would be right that it should remain completely dry, but in this case the problem is being handled on grounds which are directed rightly or wrongly with the best judgment of those who have to manage these affairs; it is being arranged for the one purpose of meeting the proper facilities of those who come from all parts of the world, with the one object of making this as suitable and proper an occasion of good will, fraternity and entertainment as possible. I have not been without some experience of Glasgow. I spent a great part of my boyhood there. Who will say of that great city of which we are so justly proud that it has not shown greater sobriety in recent years? I am confident that this proposal is not going to lead to greater insobriety, nor do I think the fears that some Members have expressed as to the effect upon children are well founded, for if I judge aright the children from the schools will be supervised, led and directed by those who are responsible for their well being and in other cases in the care of their parents.
I fully appreciate the strength of feeling of those of a temperance mind. We have all had innumerable letters on this subject and it is beyond dispute that, whatever misgivings anyone may have, the decision that we take to-night has not been hastened and it has not been made impossible for any who are


interested in the matter to make their representations, and they have had every consideration. Frankly, I believe that this is no real infringement of the rights of the individuals, and when this exhibition closes, their area will remain dry until they vote it otherwise. In those circumstances, I urge the House to vote in favour of this Order, and I trust that that will be done with the good will which has characterised the whole of this Debate and that it will not deter in any way the successful operation of this exhibition, to which we all look forward.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I would like to say a few words in the five minutes that remain before the Division takes place, so that I shall not have been silent on this matter which has aroused such very great controversy in the West of Scotland. It is a rather large controversy about a relatively trivial issue. I wish we had had here an opportunity of discussing whether or not there should be an Empire Exhibition in Glasgow. I and my hon. Friends hold the view very strongly that the City of Glasgow has much greater needs in other directions than the expenditure of £10,000,000 in erecting this great fun-fair, to fulfil what public purpose I do not know. In listening to the discussion tonight, the only public purpose seems to be to provide alcoholic refreshment. Glasgow needs £10,000,000 worth of houses. If there had been the same energy, enthusiasm and super-patriotism that has been voiced in all quarters of the House to-night, about this Exhibition, in making Glasgow a really fine City to show off to visitors from the Empire and from Europe, and if £10,000,000 had been

spent on that, in our view it would have been something worth doing.

I interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) to say that it does not matter what are the drinking facilities in the Exhibition grounds. A big proportion of my people will not go there. Can hon. Members imagine an unemployed man, his wife and four children, with his means-tested unemployment allowance, attending the Exhibition? It would cost him 5s. or more to transport his family from Bridgeton to the Exhibition grounds and to get inside. How much would he spend on drink, either standing up or sitting down? What food would he get on top of it? How many merry-go-rounds would the youngsters get on? That Exhibition, with or without a licence, is at this time, in Glasgow, a waste of time, a waste of money, a waste of energy and a waste of enthusiasm.

Mr. Stewart: Mr. Stewart rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put "; butMr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Maxton: I do not intend to talk the Bill out; I will allow hon. Members to cast their votes. I am so much against the whole Exhibition and the whole idea that, without committing my colleagues in any way, I shall refuse to vote one way or the other.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 96.

Division No. 36.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Channon, H.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Emery, J. F.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Colman, N. C. D.
Fleming, E. L.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Balniel, Lord
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Furness, S. N.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Gledhill, G.


Blair, Sir R.
Crooke, J. S.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Boulton, W. W.
Cross, R. H.
Grant-Ferris. R.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crowder, J. F. E.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Day, H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
De Chair, S. S.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Denville, Alfred
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Bull, B B.
Deland, G. F.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Burghley, Lord
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Harbord, A.


Burke, W. A.
Duggan, H. J.
Hayday, A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Carver, Major W. H.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)




Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Higgs, W. F.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Spens, W. P.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Parker, J.
Storey, S.


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Kimball, L.
Porritt, R. W.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Kirby, B. V.
Radford, E. A.
Tate, Mavis C.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's,)
Thomas, J. P. L


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Liddall, W. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Thurtle, E.


Lindsay, K. M.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Touche, G. C.


Logan, D. G.
Renner, Colonel L.
Train, Sir J.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


MaCorquodale, M. S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Turton, R. H.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Salmon, Sir 1.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Salt, E. W.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Macquisten, F. A.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Markham, S. F.
Scott, Lord William
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Marshall, F.
Selley, H. R.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Morris, J. P. (Salford. N.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)



Munro, P.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Naylor, T. E.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Mr. McKie and Mr. Erskine-Hill.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Owen, Major G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Holdsworth, H.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Hopkin, D.
Price, M. P.


Ammon, C. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Asks, Sir R. W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Batey, J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Bromfield, W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Lawson, J. J.
Simpson, F. B.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Leach, W.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Dagger, G.
Lee, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Debbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Foot, D. M.
Maclean, N.
Walkden, A. G.


Gallacher, W.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Walker, J.


Gardner, B. W.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Watson, W. McL.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Magnay, T.
Welsh, J. C.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. R.
Mander, G. le M.
White, H. Graham


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mathers, G.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Milner, Major J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hardie, Agnes
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr.




Leonard.


Bill read a Second time, and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.